The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a debt collection case involving Manuel Torres Torres and Milagros Pérez Solá. The ruling, issued on August 27, 2026, confirmed that Pérez Solá was not liable for a debt that Torres claimed was a joint obligation following their divorce. This decision is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of ex-spouses regarding debts incurred during marriage.
The case, identified as TA2026AP00400, originated from the dissolution of the marriage between Torres and Pérez Solá, finalized on December 9, 2011. Following their divorce, Torres initiated a legal action against Pérez Solá on October 26, 2012, seeking the liquidation of their community property. The couple agreed on the division of their assets and debts, which included a recognition of a debt owed to Operating Partners Co., Inc. for a loan they took out together.
In this earlier case, Operating Partners claimed that both Torres and Pérez Solá were co-debtors for a loan of $6,459.58, which they failed to repay. Torres acknowledged the debt in a motion filed in 2012, leading to a partial judgment against him. The court ordered him to pay the amount owed, and a subsequent execution order led to the seizure of his assets to satisfy this debt.
In 2025, Torres filed a new lawsuit against Pérez Solá, claiming she owed him half of the seized amount, arguing it was a community debt not addressed in their previous liquidation agreement. Pérez Solá responded by asserting that she had no legal obligation to pay Torres, as the debt had been acknowledged solely by him in earlier proceedings.
On March 30, 2026, the lower court dismissed Torres's claim against Pérez Solá, reasoning that there was no existing obligation for her to pay the debt. The court noted that the debt had been recognized as Torres's responsibility alone and that Pérez Solá had been dismissed from the original debt collection case without prejudice.
In his appeal, Torres argued that the lower court erred by ruling summarily against him, claiming that there were legal grounds for him to seek reimbursement from Pérez Solá. However, the appellate court found no merit in his argument. The judges stated, "The debt in the case F CD2010-0401 was not a community debt, and thus, Pérez Solá had no obligation to respond for half of it." This ruling was made by a panel including Judge Rodríguez Casillas, Judge Barresi Ramos, and Judge Santiago Calderón.
The court emphasized that the lower court's decision was correct, as Torres had previously assumed responsibility for the debt when he requested a partial judgment against himself. The ruling clarified that the dismissal of Pérez Solá from the debt obligation was valid, and Torres could not seek compensation from her.
This ruling has implications for similar cases involving the division of debts after divorce. It highlights the importance of clear agreements regarding financial responsibilities during divorce proceedings. The court's decision reinforces the principle that once a debt is acknowledged and assigned to one party, the other party may not be liable for repayment unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Looking ahead, Torres may consider further legal options, including potentially appealing to a higher court. However, the appellate court's confirmation of the lower court's ruling suggests that Torres faces significant challenges in proving his case. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.