Homsi wants a do-over in Governor's Island case

With a court hearing that could trigger a court-ordered auction of his house just three weeks away, Richard Homsi is asking the judge to overrule all the previous decisions that have gone against him in his decade-long legal wrangle with the Governor's Island Club.

Homsi, who owns a house at 84 Summit Ave. in Laconia, across the channel from Governor's Island, has filed a motion to vacate all previous decisions related to the case because he was never informed that the GIC’s attorney and the judge who issued the rulings once lived in the same neighborhood.

In the motion, Homsi is asking that all “prior judgments” be repealed and that he be refunded all the money he has paid to the GIC, plus interest, because of the “unruly judgment" against him.

The GIC argues that the issues raised in Homsi’s motion are false, and were not made within the period of time required by the court, and should therefore be rejected.

The GIC, formed in 1940, enforces the rules for properties on the island in Gilford, and several on Summit Avenue in Laconia, which is the approach to the bridge connecting the 504-acre island with the mainland.

In its written objection to the motion, GIC attorney Paul Fitzgerald argues that Homsi's latest maneuver was “filed for the purpose of further delaying the appropriate administration of justice and to harass the [GIC] and its legal counsel.”

In a March 29 ruling, Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III ordered Homsi to remove forbidden out buildings and clean up his yard within 30 days, and within 60 days to pay more than $130,500 in fines, court fees, and legal fees accrued by the GIC since taking Homsi to court in 2012. The ruling moreover said that the GIC would have the right to obtain a writ that would empower the county sheriff to take possession of the property and arrange for its sale at auction if Homsi failed to pay the judgment in the required time.

The GIC asked the court to issue the writ in mid-October.

While Homsi states in his motion that he has no direct evidence that the fact that Fitzgerald and O’Neill having once been “direct neighbors” rises to the level of a conflict of interest, the ruling against him should be thrown out because “it was their ethical responsibility to disclose they were neighbors.”

Homsi said that if he had known the two men “grew up and resided across the street from each other,” he would have asked for another judge.

“I believe their relationship had to do with [O’Neill’s] ridiculous, unruly, and destructive decision,” Homsi’s motion reads.

O’Neill retired from the bench days after issuing his March ruling.

Homsi has said if the house were to be put up for sale to satisfy the judgment he would have nowhere to live, according to court documents. The GIC has countered that Homsi has another house in Massachusetts as well as other assets, and so his claim that he would be “out on the street” is unfounded.

The GIC is asking that given the history of the case, the numerous times he has been found in contempt, and the repeated warnings given about the need to comply with court procedures and rules, that the court deny the motion to vacate without hearing, or else deny it after the scheduled Friday, Dec. 9, hearing. It is further asking the court to order that Homsi pay the GIC’s legal fees associated with the latest motion.