- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rouzan homes must be torn down
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:56 am to anewguy
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:56 am to anewguy
At this point who would do business with or buy anything from Tommy Spinosa?? His track record is garbage. I really do hope they hold his feet to the fire on this.
This post was edited on 8/23/17 at 11:04 am
1
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:58 am to FalseProphet
This was also ruled on and accepted by one judge then overturned after the fact. Sounds like some spiteful political bs. Spinosa did everything he was legally obligated to do. Tommy is no saint but he's getting totally screwed here.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
while correct, it's insane that LA law requires the houses to be destroyed. they should get a reward for the diminished value of their servitude and it's over. the "corrective" power is punitive and VERY sub-optimal
What if there is no other method of ingress/egress said servitude provides access to/for? Especially for public services like utility work or life-saving/public safety services to access your property? You can't just attach a, "reward for the diminished value of the servitude."
You've not only impacted the value of the servitude but of the real property it provides the owner of said servitude (and the real property it serves) access to.
You're essentially saying if a crooked metro council will permit a development and a developer has a title company attorney and a goofy engineer to risk his seals (which we all know this is a prevalent situation across the state and nation) that they can develop wherever they please and just pay a fine and move along. With zero regard or real world penalty (outside of a monetary one) for the impact of their actions.
Makes about as much sense as a football bat.
This post was edited on 8/23/17 at 11:00 am
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:08 am to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Spinosa did everything he was legally obligated to do.
Sounds like he didn't. I haven't read any of the opinions, but someone else in here said he knew it was 30 feet, relocated it, and only gave them 20.
That's not doing everything he was legally obligated to do, IMO.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's insane that LA law requires the houses to be destroyed. they should get a reward for the diminished value of their servitude and it's over.
I completely disagree. You have to have some punitive deterrent so people just don't build first and ask questions later.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:14 am to Lsupimp
Servitude in question.
(nvm, tiny pic giving issues PB time)
Basically there were houses back there with a straight gravel road leading to them. The road was wide.
It was replaced with a skinnier curving road to get there.
Stupid on the developer to cut out that 10'. Seems had he just made a straight road at normal width at that point there would be no issue.
I can sort of understand the homeowner's view. My grandpa had a similar issue. The large cow farm next to his farm sold and was cut into parcels. Developer took down the barb wire fence and replaced it. My grandpa had a handshake deal for the tree line(split cost of new barbwire fence in '81, moving it over to left of tree line instead of right, giving cows the trees for shade) with the old farmer, in exchange for use of his bridge to access the back acres. My grandpa lost use of the bridge, so he sued to make them tear down the fence. He settled for use of the bridge, which was all he wanted.
eta - ucking look up this goddamn place, get images, paint overlay make it look good and fing photobucket is siving me shite and tinypic isn't working and this damn site dont allow uploading arrghghr rant off...
(nvm, tiny pic giving issues PB time)
Basically there were houses back there with a straight gravel road leading to them. The road was wide.
It was replaced with a skinnier curving road to get there.
Stupid on the developer to cut out that 10'. Seems had he just made a straight road at normal width at that point there would be no issue.
I can sort of understand the homeowner's view. My grandpa had a similar issue. The large cow farm next to his farm sold and was cut into parcels. Developer took down the barb wire fence and replaced it. My grandpa had a handshake deal for the tree line(split cost of new barbwire fence in '81, moving it over to left of tree line instead of right, giving cows the trees for shade) with the old farmer, in exchange for use of his bridge to access the back acres. My grandpa lost use of the bridge, so he sued to make them tear down the fence. He settled for use of the bridge, which was all he wanted.
eta - ucking look up this goddamn place, get images, paint overlay make it look good and fing photobucket is siving me shite and tinypic isn't working and this damn site dont allow uploading arrghghr rant off...
This post was edited on 8/23/17 at 11:22 am
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:30 am to FalseProphet
Correct, by diminishing the width, that is where he screwed up. The narrower portion is less than 200' long.
He could have easily made that 200' portion 10' wider and avoided this whole situation. The following is the statute that addresses servitude relocation:
Art. 695. Relocation of servitude. The owner of the enclosed estate (St. Pierre's Clients) has no right to the relocation of this servitude after it is fixed. The owner of the servient estate (Spinosa) has the right to
demand relocation of the servitude to a more convenient place at his own expense, provided that
it affords the same facility to the owner of the enclosed estate.
The interpretation of that seems to be the crux of the issue.
He could have easily made that 200' portion 10' wider and avoided this whole situation. The following is the statute that addresses servitude relocation:
Art. 695. Relocation of servitude. The owner of the enclosed estate (St. Pierre's Clients) has no right to the relocation of this servitude after it is fixed. The owner of the servient estate (Spinosa) has the right to
demand relocation of the servitude to a more convenient place at his own expense, provided that
it affords the same facility to the owner of the enclosed estate.
The interpretation of that seems to be the crux of the issue.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:34 am to GFunk
quote:
You're essentially saying if a crooked metro council will permit a development and a developer has a title company attorney and a goofy engineer to risk his seals (which we all know this is a prevalent situation across the state and nation) that they can develop wherever they please and just pay a fine and move along. With zero regard or real world penalty (outside of a monetary one) for the impact of their actions.
everything comes down to money, in the end
if the diminished value has impacted the use of your property, then you can show those damages, as well
Posted on 8/23/17 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
while correct, it's insane that LA law requires the houses to be destroyed. they should get a reward for the diminished value of their servitude and it's over. the "corrective" power is punitive and VERY sub-optimal
But the rights in the servitude were asserted from the get go. Just because you are rich, you shouldn't be able to take someone's land (or servitude) and say sorry I'll just pay you off.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 12:40 pm to notbilly
quote:
This was beaten to death in the other thread from a month or so ago. Nothing was stolen. It was Spinosa's property.
Apparently the right of use of a servitude was denied to the legal owners of that right. Sounds like theft to me.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 12:43 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Spinosa did everything he was legally obligated to do. Tommy is no saint but he's getting totally screwed here.
Stating two falsehoods in quick succession does not make them true......
Posted on 8/23/17 at 6:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the diminished value has impacted the use of your property, then you can show those damages, as well
Totally deflecting from the fact that value can be quantified monetarily or intrinsically. The latter is absolutely valid as a legal concept and can complement the monetary aspect or stand alone completely from it.
It's the, "Who Watches the Watchmen," conundrum if you like graphic novels. Or if you prefer History, it's like Plato's argument for Philospher Kings. Who chooses or selects them?
In any just society you must have a system of control that provides value to an aggrieved status or party to-theoretically-assuage it. But in equal measure that system must provide a punitive, negative deterrent to prevent deviant behavior.
You wanna tie a neat bow around what's a gangly, ugly existence we call the real world. But again, don't think I didn't notice your near total deflection, SFP...
This post was edited on 8/23/17 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 8/23/17 at 8:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they should get a reward for the diminished value of their servitude and it's over. the "corrective" power is punitive and VERY sub-optimal
Jesus Christ. Has someone hijacked your TD handle? That kind of reasoning is sophomoric at best.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 9:44 pm to terriblegreen
glad i sold my lot.. ridiculous how much was promised & not anywhere close to delivering
Posted on 8/23/17 at 10:34 pm to LSUpetro
On April 24, 1992, Mary Bordelon Ford drafted a will providing for the disposal of her estate upon her death. Mrs. Ford’s husband Ralph had passed away in 1988, and they had no children.
One of the most important things in Mrs. Ford’s estate was 124 acres of land at the corner of Perkins Road and Glasgow Avenue.
In the will, she provided that three tracts of land totalling five acres located near the center of the property would be given as a “remunerative donation” to Danny Hoover and Dr. Bob Welch in payment for long years of service to her.
Tract A, consisting of her residence and 3.7 acres of land, were left to Dr. Welch.
Tract B, consisting of a home and .7 acre were left to Danny Hoover. He and his wife Janet had lived on the property since 1978 and in the house since 1983.
Tract C, consisting of a barn and .6 acre, were left jointly to Hoover and Welch.
Mrs. Ford left explicit instructions that Tracts A, B, and C would have a 30-foot wide Private Access Servitude along a particular route to allow unimpeded access to and from Glasgow Avenue. She provided the exact location of the servitude and said, “DEDICATION: The 30’ Private Access Servitude shown hereon is hereby dedicated as a private means of access to Tracts A, B, & C. No trees, shrubs, or plants may be planted on nor shall any buildings, fences or other improvements be constructed within or over said servitude so as to prevent or unreasonably interfere with the purpose for which the servitude is granted. The City-Parish has no responsibility for the maintenance of this servitude.”
Mrs. Ford provided that the remaining 119 acres would be left to her heirs, most of whom lived out of state. Her attorney was Gregory Pletsch of Baton Rouge. One of Mrs. Ford’s caregivers was the sister of developer Tommy Spinosa.
Mrs. Ford died on Oct. 24, 2003.
After her death, Spinosa began negotiations for the purchase of the property. In court documents, Pletsch stated that he had tried to convince Mrs. Ford not to divide the property. He said he warned her that it could lessen the value of the property. After her death, he approached Hoover and Welch to see if they would consider accepting cash instead of Tracts A, B, and C. They declined because they want to live on the property and have no interest to sell.
Spinosa entered into an agreement with the other heirs to purchase 109 acres for $13.1 million. He entered into a second agreement to purchase 4.5 acres located between the Hoover-Welch properties and Glasgow Avenue. The heirs and Spinosa agreed that the sale would not go through
until the heirs were able to free the property of the servitude.
Eventually, Spinosa purchased the two tracts without that condition.
By 2008, Hoover and Welch filed suit to have themselves placed in possession of their properties. Ironically, by then, the other heirs not only had been placed in possession of their 119 acres but had already sold it to Spinosa.
One of the most important things in Mrs. Ford’s estate was 124 acres of land at the corner of Perkins Road and Glasgow Avenue.
In the will, she provided that three tracts of land totalling five acres located near the center of the property would be given as a “remunerative donation” to Danny Hoover and Dr. Bob Welch in payment for long years of service to her.
Tract A, consisting of her residence and 3.7 acres of land, were left to Dr. Welch.
Tract B, consisting of a home and .7 acre were left to Danny Hoover. He and his wife Janet had lived on the property since 1978 and in the house since 1983.
Tract C, consisting of a barn and .6 acre, were left jointly to Hoover and Welch.
Mrs. Ford left explicit instructions that Tracts A, B, and C would have a 30-foot wide Private Access Servitude along a particular route to allow unimpeded access to and from Glasgow Avenue. She provided the exact location of the servitude and said, “DEDICATION: The 30’ Private Access Servitude shown hereon is hereby dedicated as a private means of access to Tracts A, B, & C. No trees, shrubs, or plants may be planted on nor shall any buildings, fences or other improvements be constructed within or over said servitude so as to prevent or unreasonably interfere with the purpose for which the servitude is granted. The City-Parish has no responsibility for the maintenance of this servitude.”
Mrs. Ford provided that the remaining 119 acres would be left to her heirs, most of whom lived out of state. Her attorney was Gregory Pletsch of Baton Rouge. One of Mrs. Ford’s caregivers was the sister of developer Tommy Spinosa.
Mrs. Ford died on Oct. 24, 2003.
After her death, Spinosa began negotiations for the purchase of the property. In court documents, Pletsch stated that he had tried to convince Mrs. Ford not to divide the property. He said he warned her that it could lessen the value of the property. After her death, he approached Hoover and Welch to see if they would consider accepting cash instead of Tracts A, B, and C. They declined because they want to live on the property and have no interest to sell.
Spinosa entered into an agreement with the other heirs to purchase 109 acres for $13.1 million. He entered into a second agreement to purchase 4.5 acres located between the Hoover-Welch properties and Glasgow Avenue. The heirs and Spinosa agreed that the sale would not go through
until the heirs were able to free the property of the servitude.
Eventually, Spinosa purchased the two tracts without that condition.
By 2008, Hoover and Welch filed suit to have themselves placed in possession of their properties. Ironically, by then, the other heirs not only had been placed in possession of their 119 acres but had already sold it to Spinosa.
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:04 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:
I'll always remember back in 2007-2008 when I was gaining in political activism at LSU and this guy was around. Wanted to build that traditional-neighborhood development on Perkins by Lee and was going to F up all sorts of traffic.
They guy running for council to represent the area had basically one issue, and that was that he would oppose the development.
So, he wins and the council goes to vote, and he votes "Yes". Then, he promptly resigned.
Turns out that Rouzan/Spinoza were secretly funding his campaign the entire time.
frick..
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:13 pm to Arkapigdiesel
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:16 pm to LStrUe
I'm a little drunk so, what does that mean??
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:23 pm to USMCTiger03
Means Spinoza personally knew of the servitude for at least a decade
Posted on 8/23/17 at 11:58 pm to boosiebadazz
This is a great showdown between big $$$ and little property owners. I love to see the property owners standing up to him like that. Around 2003, I used to date a girl that lived near Glasgow Elementary. One day I locked my keys in may car and had to walk home near Perkins and Kenilworth to get my spare. I cut through that property to save time. Those 2 homes are in an awesome little country spot in the middle of the city. I remember walking past the barn and even seeing a silo on the property. It would have been great to live there. I can see why they want to hold on to that even though all that other stuff is going up around them.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News