Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Juan Coll Gonzalez

First Circuit

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Juan Coll Gonzalez

729 F.2d 46, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24629

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1984

Docket83-1715

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 F.2d 46 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Juan Coll Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Juan Coll Gonzalez, 729 F.2d 46, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24629 (1st Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

BREYER, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sued Juan Coll Gonzalez, Adelina Cuevas (husband and wife) and their “legal conjugal partnership” to collect the principal and interest due on a promissory note for $11,500, which Coll Gonzalez had executed in favor of Banco Crédito y Ahorro Ponceno. The FDIC had bought the note from the bank when it became insolvent. *47 The district court found in favor of the FDIC, and the defendants appeal.

For the most part, defendants repeat the argument they made in the district court, namely, that there was no “consideration” for the note because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan from the bank. The record evidence, showing, among other things, that someone made monthly loan repayments of over $1,000, is more than adequate to support the district court’s conclusion that the defendants did receive the money. Defendants’ argument that the court erred in receiving into evidence a document written in Spanish without translation is frivolous. Rule 6 of the Local Rules of the Puerto Rico District Court normally requires translation, but specifically allows the court to “otherwise order.” And, defendants do not deny that Spanish is their native language.

Although Coll Gonzalez’s wife, Adelina Cuevas, did not sign the note, the conjugal partnership is liable. Conjugal partnerships are liable for commercial debts (like the one here) incurred by either of the spouses, even without the consent of the other spouse. 31 L.P.R.A. § 3672; Padro Collado v. Espada, 111 D.P.R. 56 (1981). The FDIC specifically stated at oral argument that it did not interpret the district court’s opinion to mean that the wife herself actually signed the note and that it did not intend to collect the debt from the wife’s separate property. Upon this understanding, the opinion of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

BREYER, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sued Juan Coll Gonzalez, Adelina Cuevas (husband and wife) and their “legal conjugal partnership” to collect the principal and interest due on a promissory note for $11,500, which Coll Gonzalez had executed in favor of Banco Crédito y Ahorro Ponceno. The FDIC had bought the note from the bank when it became insolvent. *47 The district court found in favor of the FDIC, and the defendants appeal.

For the most part, defendants repeat the argument they made in the district court, namely, that there was no “consideration” for the note because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan from the bank. The record evidence, showing, among other things, that someone made monthly loan repayments of over $1,000, is more than adequate to support the district court’s conclusion that the defendants did receive the money. Defendants’ argument that the court erred in receiving into evidence a document written in Spanish without translation is frivolous. Rule 6 of the Local Rules of the Puerto Rico District Court normally requires translation, but specifically allows the court to “otherwise order.” And, defendants do not deny that Spanish is their native language.

Although Coll Gonzalez’s wife, Adelina Cuevas, did not sign the note, the conjugal partnership is liable. Conjugal partnerships are liable for commercial debts (like the one here) incurred by either of the spouses, even without the consent of the other spouse. 31 L.P.R.A. § 3672; Padro Collado v. Espada, 111 D.P.R. 56 (1981). The FDIC specifically stated at oral argument that it did not interpret the district court’s opinion to mean that the wife herself actually signed the note and that it did not intend to collect the debt from the wife’s separate property. Upon this understanding, the opinion of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 F.2d 46, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-v-juan-coll-gonzalez-ca1-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack