- 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
re: Spinosa meet Nakamoto
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:53 am to jbgleason
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:53 am to jbgleason
quote:
For those that think the homeowner is being petty let me give some behind the scenes facts.
I don't live around there and don't pretend to know any behind the scene facts, but it appears both sides may have pulled some 'shenanigans'. In one of the docs I linked above, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs owed Spinosa damages for some stuff they pulled too.
0
Posted on 4/28/17 at 10:56 am to LSUpetro
All I got to say is Nakamoto, you a muthafricka!
He's still doing real journalism.
He's still doing real journalism.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:03 am to doubleb
quote:
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.
I don't think there is anything that could have prevented Spinosa from paving the full 30' original servitude and making utilities a bitch anyway. The title simply stated that the plaintiffs had a 30' servitude of passage to Glascow Ave. Where it appears Spinosa fricked up is he should have just increased the lines b/t the property along Callot & Rue Pendant to 30'. If he had, he would have been fine from what I read on the First Circuit's ruling.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:45 am to notbilly
This is a great story. One lone property owner absolutely refusing to sell to the big developer and currently winning the fight. I heard that Spinoza assumed he could eventually buy the property so all this could be avoided. Well, he assumed wrong. I bet he offered the property owner a shite load more than the property was worth too. I'd love to know what that figure was.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:07 pm to notbilly
quote:
a 30' servitude of passage
It depends on what the legal definition of servitude of passage means I guess.
But what we know is 20 feet isn't 30 feet, and Spinosa should have known better,
How much could 10 feet have mattered?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:31 pm to doubleb
State law says the servient estate (Rouzan) can relocate the servitude in favor of the dominant estate (land owner) but can not diminish it or make access more difficult than it was. It simply comes down to the width of the servitude of passage. All he had to do was keep the servitude 30' wide and he was good. His engineer/surveyor either gave him bad advice or he ignored it to screw the owners thinking he could get away with it. I know his engineer/surveyor and don't think they would have given him bad advice.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:35 pm to LSUengr
Looks like the servitude (at least for now) is via paved 20' wide alley instead of a 30' street.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:36 pm to LSUengr
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:51 pm to TigerNlc
Ha, Nakamoto doesn't even the understand the issue. The attorney is just sending out one liners and he knows it. Those people don't own the land within the servitude, only the right to use it to access their property. All boils down to him altering the width which is what the decision says.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:21 pm to jbgleason
quote:
For those that think the homeowner is being petty
Who in the frick would possibly argue that protecting ownership of your land is "petty"?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:26 pm to shawnlsu
This has been in news for a while. It's funny as shite to us poors with no dog in the fight. I like seeing Nak covering the appeal to remind everyone what a cluster frick that place has been. Good work.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:30 pm to J Murdah
quote:
I doubt this ever happens
It'll happen right along the same time as L'Auberge builds their promised golf course and other resort facilities they promised when they asked the BR voters to approve their casino.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:31 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
L'Auberge builds their promised golf course and other resort facilities they promised when they asked the BR voters to approve their casino.
Boy you just reminded me of one of Rag's epic meltdowns about us calling it Pinnacle. RIP
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:31 pm to LSUengr
quote:
LSUengr
quote:
I know his engineer/surveyor and don't think they would have given him bad advice.
You don't fool us with your transparent CYA attempt.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 2:32 pm to member12
quote:
Exactly. No fricking way it's just the developer. He should have never been able to even build, much less complete and sell homes on land that he doesn't own.
This is apparently pretty common. A few years ago a developer bought a 1 acre lot near me to build 7 houses on, which was against code for the neighborhood. The neighbors threw a shite fit. I was talking to the developer one day and he basically said "I'm not worried. I have enough council members in my pocket to get approved." Then he proceeded to build too close to the street, which was again in violation. He basically said "what do you want me to do? Tear it down?"
He got away with it. The council knew and didn't give a shite.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 3:39 pm to Godfather1
quote:
The same kind of rube that buys the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe you could convince him that it's his for a song?
Does anyone know any case law concerning this? I mean the guy closed on the property with no survey but the seller and professional land broker represented to him he would have complete private rights to the oxbow in question? Adjoining property owners had a survey done after the new landowner tried to run people off the lake and started building a fence, turns out he didn't even know where his property lines were.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 4:05 pm to Strannix
quote:Where is this? parish? thx.
Does anyone know any case law concerning this? I mean the guy closed on the property with no survey but the seller and professional land broker represented to him he would have complete private rights to the oxbow in question? Adjoining property owners had a survey done after the new landowner tried to run people off the lake and started building a fence, turns out he didn't even know where his property lines were.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 4:36 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Not trying to fool anyone. My firm is not handling this one. However I do civil engineering and surveying in Baton Rouge. It is common to have servitudes of access across property. There are statutes that describe how you can treat those servitudes. Not hard to figure out from media, public meetings, and the judgment to figure out what is going on.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 4:54 pm to shawnlsu
quote:
Just look at council members bank accounts around the time the permit was approved.
In particular, look at Mickey Skyring's bank account around that time. He was the council member who ran for his seat by running against Rouzan and then once elected became TS's best buddy. I remember that he would not accept phone calls from his constituents and was clearly TS's sycophant on the issue.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 4:55 pm to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
quote:
No Library.
There was also supposed to be a church.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News