Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Avícola Villalobos
C. 01046-2018-00217 • Twelfth Civil Court • Guatemala
Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Avícola Villalobos
This is a commercial summary lawsuit in which Avícola Villalobos, S.A. sought a judicial declaration that its obligation to pay dividends approved at the May 24, 2012 shareholders’ meeting had been extinguished by prescription. Avícola alleged that more than five years had elapsed since the dividends allegedly became enforceable and that Lisa, S.A. failed to collect them within the statutory period. Lisa opposed the claim, arguing that Avícola failed to prove a legally certain date of enforceability required to trigger prescription.
Decisions
Whether the dividends approved on May 24, 2012 were legally enforceable from a determinable date sufficient to trigger five-year prescription.
The court dismissed Avícola Villalobos’ lawsuit, holding that Avícola failed to prove with certainty when the dividend obligation became legally enforceable. Without a definite starting point for exigibility, prescription could not be computed. Avícola was ordered to pay procedural costs.
Prescription claim dismissed; Lisa’s dividend rights remain enforceable.
Court dismissed dividend case by Avícola Villalobos
Avícola Villalobos filed an amparo alleging due process violations arising from the trial court’s decision to admit BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party coadyuvante supporting Lisa.
The Court of Appeals denied the amparo, finding no constitutional violation and holding that the trial judge acted within the law. The court concluded that the amparo was an improper attempt to review ordinary judicial decisions. Avícola was ordered to pay costs, and its attorney was fined Q 1,000.
Amparo denied; procedural rulings of the trial court upheld.
Constitutional Court denied amparo by Avícola Villalobos
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Avícola failed to prove a legally certain date of enforceability necessary to compute prescription of dividend obligations.
The Court of Appeals rejected Avícola’s appeal in its entirety, affirming that the mere approval of dividends at a shareholders’ meeting does not, by itself, establish immediate legal enforceability absent proof of payment terms or conditions. The court confirmed that Avícola did not meet its burden of proof and ordered Avícola to pay appellate costs.
Appeal denied; trial judgment fully affirmed.
Confirms rejection of dividend prescription
Conclusion
Avícola Villalobos’ attempt to extinguish Lisa’s dividend rights by prescription was rejected at every level. The trial court dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a definite and legally enforceable start date for prescription. Avícola’s constitutional amparo challenging the admission of BDT Investments Inc. as a supporting co-defendant was denied, with costs and a fine imposed on Avícola’s counsel. Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judgment in full, confirming that Lisa’s dividend rights remain enforceable and ordering Avícola to pay costs at both instances.