A lawsuit that could theoretically force developer Tommy Spinosa to raze several homes in the middle of Rouzan, his traditional neighborhood development in Southdowns, heads back to 19th Judicial District Judge Janice Clark’s court Monday.
At issue is a recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that says as many as six homes in Rouzan were developed on property Spinosa did not have the legal right to build on: a servitude that connected Glasgow Avenue to two houses on a five-acre tract in the middle of Rouzan that are not actually part of the TND.
In its late-April ruling, the First Circuit overturned a 2015 ruling by Clark, which said Spinosa did have the right to build on the disputed site. The First Circuit ordered the matter back to the trial judge to set damages and determine a timeline for a removal of the six houses.
The long-running case centers on five acres of property that were bequeathed to the Welch and Hoover families in 2003 by the land’s original owner, Mary Ford. Upon her death, the remaining 119 acres of her property were sold to Spinosa. When he began developing the TND in 2012, the Welch and Hoover families sued him over their right to a 30-foot-wide servitude that connected their properties to Glasgow.
But Spinosa tore up the access road and built homes on the site, forcing the Welch and Hoover families to snake through the development to access Glasgow Avenue.
Earlier this month, Spinosa’s attorneys filed a new challenge in the 19th JDC, asking the court to give him the right to build a new servitude, something the plaintiffs’ attorney, Alex St. Amant, says is not technically possible.
“If there were another servitude up for grabs we would gladly take it but they have built around our property, they have closed us in, they have done everything they can to make it uncomfortable,” he says. “But it has backfired on them and now they have no alternative.”
Spinosa’s recent court filing was randomly assigned to Judge Mike Caldwell. It is unclear whether Caldwell will decide the matter or whether it will be reassigned to Clark’s court.
In the meantime, St. Amant will be asking the court to move forward with setting damages against Spinosa, per the First Circuit Ruling. He will also ask for a timeline for the removal of the houses that sit over the former servitude.
The city-parish has also jumped back into the dispute. It was originally named in the lawsuit by Welsh and Hoover for allowing the development to go forward, though Clark in her 2015 ruling dismissed the case. The First Circuit ruling, however, reinstated it. Parish Attorney Lea Anne Batson recently filed writs with Supreme Court of Louisiana.
“We want the First Circuit decision reversed and the trial court’s decision reinstated,” she says.
The hearing in Clark’s court is set for 2:30.
—Stephanie Riegel
