Banesco USA v. Centro Citopatologico del Caribe, Inc

CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedJanuary 31, 2022
Docket3:19-cv-01697
StatusUnknown

This text of Banesco USA v. Centro Citopatologico del Caribe, Inc (Banesco USA v. Centro Citopatologico del Caribe, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Banesco USA v. Centro Citopatologico del Caribe, Inc, (prd 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

BANESCO USA,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL NO. 19-1697 (PAD)

CENTRO CITOPATOLÓGICO DEL CARIBE, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Delgado-Hernández, District Judge. This is a foreclosure action brought by Banesco USA (“Banesco”) against Centro Citopatológico del Caribe, Inc. (“Centro Citopatológico”). Before the court is Banesco’s “Motion for Summary Judgment In Rem and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof Against Codefendant Centro Citopatológico del Caribe, Inc.” (Docket No. 67). For the reasons explained below, the motion is GRANTED. I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(c). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could returned a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). It is “material” if it potentially affects the outcome of the suit under governing law. Id. Page 2

All reasonable factual inferences must be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. See, Shafmaster v. U.S., 707 F.3d 130, 135 (1st Cir. 2013)(so noting). To resist summary judgment, however, the nonmovant must do more than show some metaphysical doubt as to a material fact. See, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)(articulating proposition). Conclusory allegations, empty rhetoric, unsupported speculation, or evidence which, in the aggregate, is less than significantly probative, do “not suffice to ward off a properly supported summary judgment motion.” Nieves-Romero v. U.S., 715 F.3d 375, 378 (1st Cir. 2013). Careful record review reflects absence of genuine dispute as to the facts identified in the section that follows. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Banesco is a corporation with principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida (Docket No. 1). Centro Citopatológico is a corporation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 1, ¶ 3). On October 31, 2014, a Loan Agreement was executed between Banesco, Centro Citopatológico, Laboratorio Clínico, Oficinas and Puerto Rico Institute of Pathology, Inc. (“PRIPI”) in the principal amount of $1,350,000.00 with annual interest at 6%, plus default interest at an annual rate of 2% in excess of the applicable rate and maturity date on October 31, 2019. (Docket No. 68, Statement of Uncontested Material Facts “SUMF” at ¶ 6). On that same date, a promissory note was issued by Centro Citopatológico, Laboratorio Clínico, Oficinas, and PRIPI, in favor of Banesco, Mortgage III through Deed No. 19, to secure the repayment of (a) the indebtedness evidenced by the note; (b) an amount of 10% of the original

principal amount of the note to cover costs, expenses and attorney’s fees in the event of foreclosure or judicial collection, or collection in any proceeding in bankruptcy of the borrowers; (c) an amount Page 3

of 10% of the original principal amount of the note to cover any advances made under the mortgage deed; and (d) an amount of 10% of the original principal amount of the note to cover interests in addition to those secured by law. SUMF at ¶ 7; Docket No. 1-9. Banesco and Centro Citopatológico1 executed a First Amendment to Credit Agreement on February 1, 2017. SUMF at ¶ 8. Centro Citopatológico and other named co-defendants acknowledged and agreed that the total amount of principal and interest due and owed under the Loan Agreement as of January 30, 2017 was $1,270,099.15 of principal and $2,369.98 of interest; Centro Citopatológico ratified and confirmed all terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and all loan documents executed on October 31, 2014. Id. The Loan Agreement, as amended, is guaranteed by, among others, the following mortgage note, which is secured by the following mortgage: i. Mortgage note executed by Centro Citopatológico on October 31, 2014, payable to the order of Banesco, for the principal amount of $30,000.00 authenticated under affidavit number 499 of Notary Public Rafael L. Rovira Arbona (“Mortgage Note III”). See, Exhibit 1, Unsworn Declaration under Penalty of Perjury, ¶7(a); and Docket No. 1-8, Complaint, Mortgage Note III; and Docket No. 37, Answer to Complaint, ¶17.

ii. The Mortgage Note III is guaranteed by a mortgage constituted through Deed Number 19 of Mortgage of October 31, 2014, before Notary Public Rafael L. Rovira Arbona recorded: (a) at Page 62 of Volume 1623, property number 29,456 of Río Piedras North, Registry of Property, Second Section of San Juan, (b) at Page 149 of Volume 1623, property number 25,713-B of Río Piedras North, Registry of Property, Second Section of San Juan, and (c) at Page 148 of Volume 1623, property number 25,713 of Río Piedras North, Registry of Property, Second Section of San Juan (“Mortgage III”). See, Exhibit 1, Unsworn Declaration under Penalty of Perjury, ¶7(b); and Docket No. 1-9, Complaint, Mortgage III; and Docket No. 37, Answer to Complaint, ¶17.

SUMF at ¶¶ 9-11.

1 The First Amendment to Credit Agreement was executed by all defendants as named in the Complaint. SUMF at ¶ 8. Page 4

Mortgage Note III, which is secured by Mortgage III, encumbers the following properties located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as described in the Registry of Property as follows: PROPERTY E:

URBAN: Horizontal Property: Parking space number twenty eight (28) Parking space located in the basement of EL CENTRO II building Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Hato Rey, San Juan, Puerto Rico, with an areas of one hundred fifty seven square feet, equivalent to fourteen point fifty one square meters, bounded: on the NORTH, by the imaginary line that separated it from parking space twenty seven (27), on a distance of nineteen feet, on the SOUTH, by the imaginary line that separates it from parking space twenty nine (29), on a distance of nineteen feet, on the EAST, by the imaginary line that separates it from the circulation area, on a distance of nineteen feet, on the WEST, by the west retaining wall on a distance of eight feet three inches. This unit has access on its Eastern boundary. Percentage: 0.031% in the general common elements.

The property described above is recorded at page 239 overleaf of volume 1014 of Río Piedras North, property number 29,456, Registry of Property, Second Section of San Juan.

PROPERTY F:

URBAN: Horizontal Property: Parking space number one hundred ninety six, Parking space located in the basement of El Centro Building Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Hato Rey, San Juan, Puerto Rico, with an area of one hundred seventy one square feet, equivalent to fifteen point eighty nine square meters, bounded on the NORTH, by the imaginary line that separates it from parking space one hundred ninety five on a distance of nineteen feet, on the SOUTH, by the imaginary line that separates it from parking space eighty, on a distance of nineteen feet, on the EAST, by imaginary line that separates it from the common area on a distance of nine feet, on the WEST, by the imaginary line that separates it from the circulation area, on a distance of nine feet. This unit has access on its Western boundary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Shafmaster v. United States
707 F.3d 130 (First Circuit, 2013)
Nieves-Romero v. United States
715 F.3d 375 (First Circuit, 2013)
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rivera-Anabitate
39 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Puerto Rico, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Banesco USA v. Centro Citopatologico del Caribe, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banesco-usa-v-centro-citopatologico-del-caribe-inc-prd-2022.