Opinion
BAP No. PR 02-068, Bankruptcy Case No. 02-05442-ESL.
July 8, 2003
Teresa M. Lube Capó, Esq. of Lube Soto Law Offices, P.S.C., on brief for the Appellee.
VOTOLATO, FEENEY, and DEASY, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, (Hon. Enrique S. Lamoutte)
Empresas Berrios d/b/a Mueblerias Berrios (the "Creditor") appeals the order of the bankruptcy court dated September 23, 2002 (the "Order") sustaining the objection of Miguel De Jesús Garcia (the "Debtor") to the Creditor's proof of claim insofar as it claims status as a secured creditor. For the reasons discussed below, the order of the bankruptcy court is affirmed.
I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
An order on an objection to claim is a final appealable order.See Neal Mitchell Assoc. v. Braunstein (In re Lambeth Corp.), 227 B.R. 1, 6 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1998) (citations omitted); see also In re Saco Local Dev. Corp., 711 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1983) (discussing bankruptcy appellate panel jurisdiction). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the "Panel") has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (b).
A bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Prebor v. Collins (In re I Don't Trust), 143 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998); Brandt v. Repco Printers Lithographics, Inc. (In re Healthco Int'l, Inc.), 132 F.3d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 1997).
II. Background
The material facts in this appeal are not in dispute. On July 21, 2001, the Debtor purchased certain home furnishings and appliances for personal, family or household use ("Consumer Goods") from the Creditor. At the time of the purchase the parties executed an installment sales contract (the "Contract") which the Creditor filed with the Registry of Commercial Transactions at the Office of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. On May 22, 2002, the Debtor filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. On May 24, 2002, the Creditor filed a proof of claim alleging a secured claim in the amount of $3,742.77. On August 14, 2002, the Debtor objected to the Creditor's claim of secured status on the basis that the Contract did not create a valid perfected security interest in the Consumer Goods under applicable law. On August 22, 2003, the Creditor replied to the Debtor's objection to claim and requested a stay of the issue pending the outcome of the Creditor's appeal filed in the case of In re Ortiz. The bankruptcy court denied the request for a stay on September 5, 2002. On September 23, 2002, the bankruptcy court issued an Opinion and Order sustaining the Debtor's objection to the secured status of the Creditor's claim based upon the failure of the Contract to create a security interest under applicable law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
III. Discussion
Even though the Debtor/Appellee did not file a brief, the Appellant agreed during the April 21, 2002 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hearing that both the instant case and In re Ortiz, BAP No. PR 02-051 presented the same legal and factual issues. As the result in this case is the same, the Panel's discussion on whether the Contract created a security interest under Puerto Rican law can be found in the Panel's decision in In re Ortiz, BAP No. PR 02-051, released contemporaneously with this opinion. The Panel's discussion in In re Ortiz, BAP No. PR 02-051, is incorporated herein by reference.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court did not err when it found that the Contract was not a security agreement within the meaning of the Commercial Transactions Act. Accordingly, the Order is AFFIRMED.