Alvarez Crespo v. Olavarria Rivera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 1993
• Docket: 92-2147
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 92-2147

                               NOEMI ALVAREZ-CRESPO and
                              LUIS FELIPE RIVERA-ROYAL,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                              MATEO OLAVARRIA-RIVERA and
                                  ANTONIA OLAVARRIA,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jos  Antonio Fust , U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________

                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                _____________________

               Jos  A. Cestero-Rodr guez, with whom Jos  A. Andr u-Fuentes,
               _________________________            ______________________
          was on brief for appellants.
               Nydia Gonz lez-Ortiz, with whom Emiliano Irizarry-Castro and
               ____________________            ________________________
          Puerto Rico Legal Services, was on brief for appellees.
          __________________________

____________________

                                     May 26, 1993
                                 ____________________

TORRUELLA, Circuit  Judge.   This dispute  involves the
                               ______________

          ownership of a house in  Camuy, Puerto Rico.  After a  jury found

          for appellees, the district court  denied appellants' alternative

          motions for judgment as a matter of law and  for a new trial.  We

          affirm the district court's judgment.

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    The  parties  agree  to  the following  facts  for  the

          purposes  of   this  appeal.    Appellants,   Mateo  and  Antonia

          Olavarr a, are Puerto Rican retirees living in Miami.  Appellees,

          Luis Felipe Rivera and Noem  Alvarez, are appellants' grandnephew

          and grandniece.  In 1985,  appellants visited appellees in Puerto

          Rico.   Luis and  Noem  were married  with four  children at  the

          time, but have  since divorced.   Troubled by   Luis'  deplorable

          living conditions, Mateo offered to buy land to  build a home for

          Luis and his family.  Soon after,  Luis found  a parcel  of land,

          and Mateo bought  it for $18,000.   Mateo took  title in his  own

          name to prevent Luis from selling it.

                    Learning  on a  later  visit that  Luis  had not  begun

          construction of the  house, Mateo  opened an account  at a  local

          bank with $12,500,  to help him  get started.   Mateo later  made

          additional deposits.  Antonia sent Mateo $30,000 from their joint

          account  for  one of  these  deposits.   Ultimately,  the account

          reached the sum of $51,000, which Luis used to build the home.

                    When Mateo  later learned that Luis  planned to divorce

          Noem , he attempted to sell the house.  Luis and  Noem  then sued

          Mateo  and Antonia, claiming ownership.   At trial,  a jury found

-2-

for  appellees,  and the  court  denied  appellants' motions  for

          judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                    As always, we must afford the jury verdict considerable

          deference.    We will  overturn a  district  court's denial  of a

          motion for judgment as  a matter of  law only if  we find that  a

          rational  jury could reach only  one conclusion.   See Pearson v.
                                                             ___ _______

          John Hancock  Mut. Life  Ins. Co.,  979 F.2d  254, 255  (1st Cir.
          _________________________________

          1992).   Similarly, we review a district  court's denial of a new

          trial only for abuse of discretion.  PH Group Ltd.  v. Birch, 985
                                               _____________     _____

          F.2d 649, 653 (1st Cir. 1993).

                    Puerto Rico  is a civil  law jurisdiction,  ruled by  a

          civil code.  Pursuant  to its provisions in  P.R. Laws Ann.  tit.

          31,    3672  (1991),  no  spouse may  donate  community  property

          without  the written  consent  of the  other  spouse, other  than

          property meant for personal or family  use that individuals would

          commonly transfer  given their economic situation.   Section 3672

          provides in relevant part:

                      Notwithstanding [exceptions not  relevant
                      here],  neither of  the  two spouses  may
                              _______
                      donate,   alienate   or   bind    for   a
                      consideration   the   personal  or   real
                      property   of   the  community   property
                      without the written consent of  the other
                                  _______________
                      spouse, excepting things for  personal or
                      family use in  accordance with the social
                      or economic standing of both spouses.

                      Any disposal or  administration act  made
                      with  respect to said  property by either
                                                         ______
                      of  the spouses in  violation of this and
                      any other section of this title shall not
                      affect the other spouse or his heirs.

-3-

(emphasis added).

                    Appellants  argue that  according to    3672,  the jury

          reached  an  improper  verdict  because  appellees  presented  no

          evidence that Antonia  consented to or  ratified the donation  of

          the money  in writing.   However,    3672  applies only  when one

          spouse  makes a donation.  The statute states that neither spouse
                                                             _______

          may donate community property without the  written consent of the

          other spouse.  It  requires that when an individual's  rights may

          be affected by her spouse's donation, she must consent in writing
                             ________

          to the transaction.  It says  nothing of such a requirement  when

          both spouses donate movable property.   The legislature enacted  
          ____

          3672 to  make both  spouses equal co-administrators  of community

          property, and to protect  individuals from depletion of community

          assets  by their spouses.   Silva Ramos v.  Registrador, 107 P.R.
                                      ___________     ___________

          Dec.  240 (1978) (translation at  9).  When  both spouses jointly
                                                       ____

          give  a gift  of movable  property, they  literally co-administer

          that  property, and thus neither  party can claim  that the other

          depleted the community assets.1

                    In  the  present  case,  the district  court  found  it
                              
          ____________________

          1    While  the Puerto  Rico  Supreme  Court  has never  directly
          addressed the issue of whether written consent is  necessary when
          both spouses together  give a  gift of movable  property, it  has
          stated  in dicta that   3672 requires the written consent of both
          spouses  for  the  disposition  of real  and  personal  community
          property.  See Silva Ramos, 107 P.R. Dec. 240 (translation at 9).
                     ___ ___________
          This suggests that even  if both spouses make the  donation, they
          both  must provide written consent.   We find,  however, that the
          dicta contradicts  the express  language of  the statute  and the
          purposes behind it.  Thus,  absent a direct mandate on point,  we
          cannot conclude that when a spouse violates the statute, the same
          spouse can later  hide behind  it to avoid  an already  completed
          donation.

                                         -4-

reasonable for a  jury to  conclude that both  Mateo and  Antonia

          knowingly  gave Luis and Noem  a gift of money.  We find no clear

          error  in this ruling.  The record contained testimony that Mateo

          told Luis that he was giving him money as a gift to build a home,

          and that he put that money in a joint checking account in both of

          their names.  (Transcript of Trial Proceedings at 33,  38).  Luis

          then used that money to build a house.  According  to the record,

          both Mateo  and Antonia knew of  the joint bank account.   Id. at
                                                                     ___

          85.   Indeed, Antonia sent money to  her husband for the account,

          and she testified that she knew that the money was for a house on

          their land in  Camuy.  Id.  at 80,  85.  Furthermore,  appellants
                                 ___

          never  withdrew  money  from  the joint  account,  and  appellees

          controlled  the check  book.    Id.  at  43.    Appellants  never
                                          ___

          requested that  appellees  explain or  justify their  use of  the

          money  in that account, and  appellees kept all  of the account's

          canceled checks.  Id.  at 45.  Finally, appellants  never claimed
                            ___

          ownership of  the  house before  Luis  and Noem 's  divorce,  and

          appellees had the  keys to  the house, an  indicia of  ownership;

          appellants did not.  Id. at 49-50.
                               ___

                    From this evidence, a rational jury could conclude that

          both Mateo and Antonia gave appellees  money as a gift to build a

          house, and the  weight of  the evidence did  not contradict  this

          conclusion.  Thus, the district court properly denied appellants'

          alternative motions.

                    Affirmed.
                    ________

-5-