JORGE LUIS RIVERA CAMACHO and MILAGROS FONTANEZ COLON

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
JORGE LUIS RIVERA CAMACHO 	CASE NO. 10-06358 BKT
MILAGROS FONTANEZ COLON
Chapter 13
XXX-XX-3210
XXX-XX-2406
FILED & ENTERED ON 01/21/2011
Debtor(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon the Debtors' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of
Debtors Plan To Retain A Second Property [Dkt. No. 39], and the Trustee's Objection To Plan
Confirmation [Dkt. No. 40]. For the reasons set forth below, the Trustee’s objection is SUSTAINED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The Debtors contend that the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 526, 971 (indicating
that parents are responsible for supporting their children until the age of 21), obligates them to
continue making a $948.00 per month mortgage payment on a second home wherein their adult son
(age 22) and minor daughter (age 19) live. If the Debtors are not able to make these payments, their
daughter may have to move back in with them. The Debtors advance several compelling arguments
Case:10-06358-BKT13 Doc#:43 Filed:01/21/11 Entered:01/21/11 14:44:39 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in support of their contention that this would be unreasonably burdensome, specifically, (1) that their
household expenses will increase; (2) their daughter will have to drive farther and spend more on gas
to get back and forth to her school; (3) that the trip between their home and the school would be
unsafe at night; and (4) that their daughter may lose her part time job due to increased commute time.
The Trustee contends that there is no circumstance under which the increased household
expenses and inconveniences of having to let their daughter move back in with them would cost the
Debtors more than the $948 per month mortgage payment that they are paying. Even a $300 increase
in expenses, which the Trustee argues would be excessive, would still increase the total plan base
and allow for greater distribution to the unsecured creditors (who, under the Debtors’ proposed plan,
would get 14% of their total claims).
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
The Puerto Rico Civil Code does not provide any requirement to support an adult child who
is not in school. 31 L.P.R.A. § 526; Key Nieves v. Oyola Nieves, 116 D.P.R. 261, 266 (1985). Thus,
the Debtors’ argument that they are legally required to support their 22 year old son, who is not
attending school, is without merit. As the Chapter 13 Trustee properly points out a $948 per month
payment for their daughter’s housing expenses alone is excessive, particularly when their adult son
(who they are not required to support) also reaps the benefits of that payment by living in the same
house. Debtors have not presented a legally compelling reason that justifies maintaining a second
residence, in prejudice of their unsecured creditors. The convenience in maintaining a second home
for their daughter is not above Debtor's obligation to pay their unsecured creditors. In Re Julia A.
Hess, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3553 (N.D Ohio 2007); See also, U.S. Trustee v. Harrelson et. al, 323
B.R. 176, 179 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2005).
Case:10-06358-BKT13 Doc#:43 Filed:01/21/11 Entered:01/21/11 14:44:39 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Accordingly, the trustee’s objection to plan confirmation is SUSTAINED, and therefore
confirmation of the plan filed on July 20, 2010 [Dkt. No. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21 st day of January, 2011.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
CC: 	DEBTOR(S)
SONIA A RODRIGUEZ RIVERA
JOSE RAMON CARRION MORALES
Case:10-06358-BKT13 Doc#:43 Filed:01/21/11 Entered:01/21/11 14:44:39 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 3