Alvarez Crespo v. Olavarria Rivera ( 1993 )

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
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
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-