
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                 ____________________          No. 96-1883                   ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,                                Plaintiff - Appellant,                                          v.                          HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL.,                               Defendants - Appellees.                                 ____________________          Nos. 96-1992               96-1993               96-1994                   ESTANCIAS LA PONDEROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,                                Plaintiff - Appellee,                                          v.                          HILDA SOLTERO-HARRINGTON, ET AL.,                               Defendants - Appellants.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dom nguez, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                             and Saris,* District Judge.                                          ______________                                _____________________               Luis A. Mel ndez-Albizu, with whom Luis S nchez-Betances and               _______________________            _____________________                                        ____________________          *  Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.          S nchez-Betances & Sifre were on brief for Estancias La Ponderosa          ________________________          Development Corporation.               Jos   Luis  Novas-Due o  for  Hilda  Soltero-Harrington  and               _______________________          Rafael Durand-Manzanal.                                 ____________________                                    April 24, 1997                                 ____________________                                         -2-                    Per Curiam.   Upon  due consideration of  the appellate                    Per Curiam.                    __________          briefs, arguments of counsel  and record in this case,  we affirm          the  decision of the district  court for the  reasons provided in          its  thorough  and well  reasoned  opinion.    See  Estancias  La                                                         ___  _____________          Ponderosa  Develop. Corp. v.  Harrington, 195  B.R. 210  (D. P.R.          _________________________     __________          1996).   In view of the fact that  the result on the merits is in          favor  of  the appellee,  we need  not decide  the jurisdictional          issues raised by appellee on its cross-appeals.  See Hachikian v.                                                           ___ _________          FDIC, 96  F.3d 502, 506 n.4  (1st Cir. 1996) ("'It  is a familiar          ____          tenet that when an appeal presents a jurisdictional quandary, yet          the merits of the underlying issue, if reached, will in any event          be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  party  challenging the  court's          jurisdiction, then  the  court  may  forsake  the  jurisdictional          riddle and simply dispose of the appeal on the merits.'" (quoting          United  States v. Stoller, 78 F.3d 710, 715 (1st Cir. 1996)); see          ______________    _______                                     ___          also Institut Pasteur v.  Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104  F.3d 489,          ____ ________________     _______________________          492 (1st Cir. 1997) (applying rule in bankruptcy case).                    Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants.                    Affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to defendants.                    ____________________________________________________                                         -3-
