Editor’s note: This story has been updated since its original publication to include a statement from developer Tommy Spinosa.
Judge Janice Clark’s ruling Thursday in the years-long dispute over access to a servitude between Rouzan developer Tommy Spinosa and the two families whose properties are surrounded by but not part of his traditional neighborhood development, was a significant victory for the developer.
But it doesn’t settle the dispute for good. The attorney representing the Welch and Hoover families, who have been battling Spinosa for years over the servitude issue, is vowing to continue the fight and appeal Clark’s latest ruling.
Clark ruled that Spinosa has to restore the families’ access to “a” servitude that runs through vacant lot 38 in Rouzan by January. But the judge did not order the developer to restore the original servitude the families used to access Glasgow Avenue, which would have required tearing down six new houses in the TND.
“Even though the servitude the plaintiffs’ claim to possess has never had any effect on Rouzan or current homeowners, and in spite of the plaintiffs receiving all they have asked for—monetary damages and a servitude —the plaintiffs have now indicated their intent to appeal the trial court’s ruling because it did not order any of the neighbor’s houses torn down,” Spinosa says in a statement. “Rouzan believes the court’s ruling fully complies with the First Circuit’s order. Rouzan now wishes to turn its attention back to creating an excellent development for Baton Rouge.”
In June, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling by Clark in Spinosa’s favor and ordered the judge by Thursday to set a timeline for restoring the Welch and Hoover’s access to a servitude.
Alex St. Amant, who represents the Welch and Hoover families, says building a servitude through lot 38 won’t work for his clients because the location isn’t suitable.
“Lot 38 is a ditch,” he says. “It can’t be used for anything else. They’ve been trying to get rid of it. It’s not an adequate servitude.”
Clark’s ruling also requires Spinosa to pay the families $96,000 in damages, which is far less than she could have ordered. It is also less than he would have likely had to pay had he settled the suit with the families outside of court.
St. Amant says his clients aren’t really “interested” in the damages award. He says while he believes they’re entitled to more than $96,000, he doesn’t yet know whether he will appeal because it could slow down his appeal on the servitude issue.
—Stephanie Riegel
