The Easement Lawsuit

Here are the key documents from the lawsuit that started in 2008. The number of motions, rulings and attorney opinions is, to be honest, overwhelming. We’ve selected what we think are the key documents people would like to see or review. NOTE: English versions were translated from the original Spanish versions using Deep-l. Any errors or omissions in the English versions are not intentional.

  • The foundational ruling. Confirmed the easements are valid, perpetual real property rights benefiting Clusters 1 and 2. Prohibited the Developer from altering, modifying, or destroying the protected facilities without owner consent. Decided on 62 stipulated facts agreed to by both parties — the foundational facts of this case were not in dispute. This is the order that remains unenforced. [Spanish↓] [English↓]

  • The community's legal brief asking for a summary judgement, this document summarizes the factual and legal basis for the easements. A comprehensive companion to the court rulings for readers who want to try to see the full legal picture. [Spanish↓] [English↓]

  • Affirmed the 2009 ruling on all foundational issues. The easements are valid, perpetual, and binding on the servient estate. Confirmed the Developer cannot invoke the membership condition to extinguish the easements — because they themselves stopped enforcing membership in 1987. Every argument the Developer raised on appeal was rejected. Note: The original Spanish document has at typo on page 17, identifying the original judgment as November 25, 2019. It should have been 2009. We guess the court couldn’t contemplate such a drawn-out process either! [Spanish↓] [English↓]

  • The Supreme Court denied further review, closing every appellate avenue available to the Developer. The case is final. There are no further appeals. [Spanish↓] [English↓]

  • The legal filing that formally launched the easement lawsuit. Filed on behalf of Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 owners, this petition asked the court to declare the existence of perpetual easements of use in favor of the dominant properties — the residential clusters — and to confirm that the Developer could not alter, destroy, or repurpose the protected facilities without owner consent. This is the complaint that set the entire 14-year litigation in motion and established the legal framework the 2009 TPI judgment was built on. [Spanish↓] [English↓]

Other

  • A pivotal piece of evidence in the easement case. In this letter, Jim Dalton — then President of the Club — notified the President of Cluster 2 that, effective May 15, 1987, all Cluster 2 owners were released from the obligation to maintain mandatory Club membership. This letter established the factual basis for one of the case's most important legal findings: that the Developer stopped enforcing the membership condition in 1987, and therefore cannot invoke that condition to claim the easements were extinguished. The Court of Appeals relied on this letter in its 2021 ruling. [Download PDF ↓]

  • Expressly acknowledged the easements established in the 1975 and 1976 deeds and incorporated a master plan identifying the locations where the easements are to be enjoyed. Confirmed the easement covers tennis courts, golf course, clubhouse, and beach facilities. Established the obligation to maintain Rio Mar as a "first-class resort" — a recorded legal obligation binding on every successor owner. [Download PDF ↓]

  • A deed executed by the Developer that included a plan ("Exhibit B") identifying the facilities subject to the easements. Entered into evidence as part of the stipulated facts agreed to by both parties in the 2009 TPI proceedings. Relevant to establishing the Developer's own acknowledgment of the easement boundaries and the facilities covered. [Download PDF ↓]

  • Confirms ECORED, Inc. is a duly registered, active domestic nonprofit corporation under the laws of Puerto Rico. Registration No. 55129. Founded June 27, 2008. [Download PDF ↓]