TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Juan Coll Gonzalez

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Juan COLL GONZALEZ, Et Al., Defendants, Appellants

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Gonzalez, 729 F.2d 46 (1st Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 9, 1984
Docket
No. 83-1715
Judges
Campbell, Wisdom, Breyer
Citations
729 F.2d 461984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24629

Opinion — Breyer

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Padró Collado v. Espada, 111 P.R. Dec. 56 (1981) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list