Judge: No second bite at the apple in Homsi vs. GIC case

There will be no redo of the decade-long legal dispute between Richard Homsi and the Governor's Island Club, Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Leonard has ruled.

Judge Leonard denied Homsi’s motion to vacate all previous decisions related to the case in a one-sentence ruling issued Tuesday.

Homsi, who owns a house at 84 Summit Ave., in Laconia, across the channel from Governor's Island, had argued that the case should be re-litigated because GIC attorney Paul Fitzgerald and Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III, who presided over the case until his retirement at the end of March, had been neighbors.

But the judge sided with the arguments GIC made in its objection to Homsi’s motion, namely that he filed the motion too late, and that the claims he asserted in his motion are not corroborated by sworn written statements as required by court regulations.

Fitzgerald said Wednesday the fact the judge did not see the need for a hearing prior to ruling on the motion showed the strength of the position of the GIC, the legal entity which enforces the rules for properties on the island, in Gilford, and several on Summit Avenue, in Laconia.

The GIC filed suit against Homsi in 2012, alleging that he had put up outbuildings and other structures on his property in violation of GIC rules.

Just prior to his retirement, O’Neill ruled that if Homsi failed to comply with his order, including paying $130,500 in fines and fees, the GIC would have the right to obtain a writ to initiate a process by which his property be sold at auction to satisfy the judgment.

The GIC asked the court to issue the writ in mid-October, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for Friday, Dec. 9 in Belknap Superior Court.

Homsi on Wednesday said that he would file a motion asking Leonard to reconsider her decision.

Homsi contends that if he had known that Fitzgerald and O’Neill had once been direct neighbors — they lived across the street from each other in their youth — he would have asked that another judge sit on the case.

Asked what evidence he had that the pair's acquaintance created a conflict of interest, Homsi replied, “I don’t think I need any evidence that their relationship prejudiced the case.”

As to the timing of submitting his motion to vacate, Homsi said he had been told by the court that he could not file any motions because the case was closed. However, he continued, when the GIC filed its motion to obtain the writ, he said that action, in his opinion, reopened the case and so filed the motion soon afterward.

Homsi said that in issuing the ruling against his motion on Tuesday, he believed the judge was unaware that “I was denied the ability to file motions” earlier.

In addition to asking that all of O’Neill’s rulings be repealed, Homsi also asked that he be repaid whatever fines he has paid thus far, plus interest.