- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Spinosa wins ruling in Rouzan servitude dispute
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:01 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:01 am
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Rouzan ruling a victory for Spinosa but the legal battle continues
6
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:03 am to Brummy
quote:
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.
Reasonable IMO.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:04 am to Brummy
quote:
Spinosa wins ruling
quote:
Clark’s ruling also requires Spinosa to pay the families $96,000 in damages,
Congrats on the win, Tommy. Your stellar reputation remains intact.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:07 am to Brummy
I said this yesterday. The judge ruled in Spinosa's favor before. Appeals overturned it and then told the original judge to make a ruling on the payment. Of course the original judge that doesn't think he's at fault is going to fine him pennies on the dollar
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:08 am to Brummy
Judge can get that new boat now right?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:09 am to Brummy
This was a given from the onset. As always in these suits, the real winners are the lawyers. Could this result not have been accomplished in mediation with way less attorneys' fees (though perhaps not a viable option due to the reputation of the defendant)? Did these plaintiffs really think they were going to have 6 houses torn down to maintain the width of their ROW?
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 11:12 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:12 am to Brummy
$96k, 50% to attorneys, leaves a little more than $47k to the family. How fast will they burn through <$50k?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News