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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-