- 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
0
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:00 am to LSUpetro
quote:
still dont understand how Spinosa was allowed to narrow, re-route, & inconvenience a known set servitude
He owns the servitude so all he has to do from a legal perspective is replace the servitude without diminishing it.
I believe this is the servitude in question (2008 google street view):
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 9:01 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:01 am to LSUpetro
Alex St. Amant has been like a dog with a bone on this case.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:04 am to The Boat
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was the chick in the video with the nice arse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was thinking.
St. Amant's daughter (a lawyer as well)
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:07 am to udtiger
quote:
I'm not familiar with what is developed out there, but it may be possible to widen a street or give them access using a different route. The misleading part of the story is that it seems from the First Circuit ruling that the plaintiffs' land was never disturbed. The argument is the 30' wide servitude versus the 20' street they now have to use to get from there homes to Glascow ave.
There is nothing in that ruling that requires houses to be torn down. The only thing that ruling requires is that the current streets (the replacement servitude) be widened from 20' to 30'.
Now, the issue is whether that is doable. I'm guessing the lots adjacent to those streets have already been sold. Thus, can spinosa/rouzan take an additional 5' from each side of the street from the adjacent property owners in order to restore the servitude of passage to 30'?
The answer is no...the property owners would have to "sell" the 5' to Rouzan via private party sale. No way for the city to expropriate the property either since there's no way the city could claim necessity for public use.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:09 am to notbilly
quote:
He owns the servitude so all he has to do from a legal perspective is replace the servitude without diminishing it.
He sort of did that by paving a street grid.
I'm not sure how this happened, but IMO a paved street is better than that dirt two track.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:10 am to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
It's because of Spinosa that Alamo Drafthouse cancelled their plans to open a location in Rouzan.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:14 am to Strannix
quote:
There's a situation in north LA where a guy paid over 3 million dollars for exclusive rights to an oxbow on the red and some surrounding property, turns out he doesn't even own all of the lake bottom and starting building a fence on land he didn't even own. Who pays 3 million dollars for a piece of property without even getting a survey done?
The same kind of rube that buys the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe you could convince him that it's his for a song?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:31 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
There is nothing in that ruling that requires houses to be torn down. The only thing that ruling requires is that the current streets (the replacement servitude) be widened from 20' to 30'.
20' is a narrow servitude when it includes a street.
FWI, I believe a traditional subdivision has a 30 foot street which includes servitudes and sidewalks and the street.
If the street is 20 foot wide now, would you have to break the street to install utilities?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:33 am to Bard
quote:I doubt this ever happens
Eventually, toward the Perkins frontage, there is to be another Perkins Rowe style development of shops and such.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:36 am to member12
quote:
He sort of did that by paving a street grid.
I'm not sure how this happened, but IMO a paved street is better than that dirt two track.
Of course it's better. From the looks of it the plaintiffs rarely, if ever, used the original servitude. Now they have a nicer, paved roads and their property values have probably gone up significantly. So I think it's pretty safe to assume the motivation of this case has nothing to do with the actual servitude. No one in the area wanted Rouzan so I'm sure this is the plaintiffs way of giving Spinosa the finger. I'm no fan of spinosa, but the whole story by wbrz was sensationalized.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:54 am to doubleb
quote:
20' is a narrow servitude when it includes a street.
FWI, I believe a traditional subdivision has a 30 foot street which includes servitudes and sidewalks and the street.
I'm no engineer and I don't have the final plat, but there are MANY different ways to design and layout subdivisions. Many 2-way streets in BR are only about 18' wide. Most subdivisions I see are closer to the 24'+ wide mark but that is only the width of the street. In fact, I believe in this case the plaintiffs' argument is about Callot Street and Rue Pendant which have less than a 30' b/t property lines. I don't believe Arrowhead Street is actually 30' wide, but there is at least 30' b/t the property lines on either side of the road.
quote:
If the street is 20 foot wide now, would you have to break the street to install utilities?
no. The utility servitude would be separate from the street. However, Rouzan is laid out so there is a street in front and behind the homes. Therefore the utlities likely only come from the front or back. There is a good chance there are no utilities run on along the narrow streets.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:55 am to notbilly
quote:
Of course it's better. From the looks of it the plaintiffs rarely, if ever, used the original servitude. Now they have a nicer, paved roads and their property values have probably gone up significantly. So I think it's pretty safe to assume the motivation of this case has nothing to do with the actual servitude. No one in the area wanted Rouzan so I'm sure this is the plaintiffs way of giving Spinosa the finger. I'm no fan of spinosa, but the whole story by wbrz was sensationalized.
Was the "servitude" the means of egress to these homes, or was there another way they got to their homes prior to Rouzan? There must have been.
Now it appears they have a better means to access their homes, but do they have a "servitude" for utilities, etc.?
A paved "servitude" can be worse than a unimproved servitude when it comes to utilities such as cable, electrical, water, sewer and gas, etc.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 9:57 am to notbilly
quote:
no. The utility servitude would be separate from the street. However, Rouzan is laid out so there is a street in front and behind the homes. Therefore the utlities likely only come from the front or back. There is a good chance there are no utilities run on along the narrow streets.
I understand that, so how would utilities be routed to the existing homes if the servitude is paved?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:05 am to doubleb
It was a straight servitude. Now the servitude makes a loop (1-way) around houses which is the argument.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:18 am to doubleb
quote:
I understand that, so how would utilities be routed to the existing homes if the servitude is paved?
The utility servitude is frequently within the homeowners property line. In other words the first 10' to 25' of your property is used to run electrical, water, sewer, gas, etc. The utilities frequently cross under a street. Underground boring is relatively easy these days as well.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:22 am to LSUpetro
This is correct. For those that think the homeowner is being petty let me give some behind the scenes facts. I know as I live nearby and have watched this play out. Spinoza bought the land for Rouzan assuming this property owner would sell before being surrounded. They didn't sell so he began trying to force them out. At one point, he cut off gas service to their home. Not sure how he got away with cutting a utility but I know they were having tanked gas brought in for a while. He pulled some other shenanigans as well but they still wouldn't sell. Then he cut off the access as discussed here and substituted the streets. BUT they made it a point to make those streets one way (only ones in the whole development) just so it is a PITA to get to their home. So, while it doesn't sound like a big deal, I understand why they are pissed and are demanding he fix things.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:37 am to notbilly
quote:
The utility servitude is frequently within the homeowners property line. In other words the first 10' to 25' of your property is used to run electrical, water, sewer, gas, etc. The utilities frequently cross under a street. Underground boring is relatively easy these days as well.
But you are missing the point. These people had a 30 foot servitude straight from their property to Glasgow.
They had an easy way to get utilities when the time came. Now they do not.
Is Cox going to directional bore under all that concrete? Is Entergy going to directional bore under all that concrete? That's not what they do generally, and if they did it would be far more expensive.
If Spinosa had provided a concrete road and a servitude paralleling it, that would be one thing; however, that's not what he did.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:39 am to LSUpetro
quote:
It was a straight servitude. Now the servitude makes a loop (1-way) around houses which is the argument.
Not according to the First Circuit. Here are the 3 rulings. I might be missing something, but the argument is the width. There is other legal stuff in there about who is doing what b/c some of it was done by Glascow Partners and some of it by 2590.
LINK
LINK
LINK
quote:
Here, issues are presented as to whether or not the servitude has been diminished" in violation of the first paragraph of LSA -C.C. art. 748. The " title" creating the servitude at issue herein, i.e., the judgment of possession referencing the will and paraphed map, provides for a thirty -foot wide servitude from Tracts A, B, and C to Glasgow Avenue. The " roads" which plaintiffs must now traverse from Tracts A, B, and C to Glasgow Avenue are not thirty -feet wide. Specifically, the final plat of Rouzan Phase 3B and 3C, as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 22, 2013, shows that Rue Perdant and Callot Street, which now must be traversed to reach Glasgow Avenue from Tracts A and B, are twentyfoot right -of -ways. Accordingly, we must determine if this reduction of the servitude' s width constitutes a " diminishment of the servitude" in violation of the first paragraph of LSA -C.C. art. 748.'
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:40 am to jbgleason
Nakamoto will get to digging... sure he'll find more
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News