A faulty survey resulted in $1.8-million house being built in public park on Point Judith.

PROVIDENCE � The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that a $1.8-million house set in picturesque Point Judith must be removed because the developer built it entirely on public park land dedicated to recreation and contemplation.

The high court found that while the justices were not unsympathetic to developer Robert C. Lamoureux�s plight, they were convinced that it would be �an unjust result� to order the transfer of the title of the property to Lamoureux or to award money damages as compensation to the rightful owners of the land, the Rose Nulman Park Foundation.

The ruling upholds a 2012 decision by Superior Court Judge Brian P. Stern ordering Lamoureux to remove within 180 days the three-story house that features a rooftop cabana with a Jacuzzi and wet bar. Stern found that the oceanfront house must be demolished or moved because it constituted a continuing trespass on Rose Nulman Park.

James E. Kelleher, a lawyer for Lamoureux, had argued there were exceptions in which the court could impose remedies short of removal.

�We�re obviously disappointed,� Kelleher said Friday. His client is disappointed, too, that alternative plans, such as a land swap, �were not given much consideration.�

Lamoureux has approval from the town, the state Department of Environmental Management and the Coastal Resources Management Council to undertake the �enormously cumbersome� process of moving the house and septic system to the neighboring lot, he said.

The environmental advocacy group Save The Bay has filed suit to block that move based on its impact on the sensitive coastal Money Pond and the bordering wetlands, according to Kendra Beaver, a staff lawyer with the environmental advocacy group. CRMC�s approval was not based on evidence, she said.

�Our position is they can move the house to a buildable lot,� said Beaver, who praised the high court ruling.

Lamoureux, a Warwick developer, purchased land on Ocean Road in 1984. Three years later, he engaged ERA Engineering to subdivide the lot into two parcels. He conveyed three acres at 1444 Ocean Rd. to Four Twenty Corp., of which Lamoureux is president.

In 2010, relying on Carrigan Engineering, Four Twenty built the house �on what the faulty plans and survey� identified as land belonging to Four Twenty.

Construction was completed in January 2011. That same month, Four Twenty entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement with a prospective buyer for $1.9 million. That buyer conducted a survey that showed the house resting squarely on park land and backed out of the deal.

Lamoureux immediately contacted Carol B. Nulman, a trustee, about the problem and whether an accommodation could be reached.

In March 2011, the Rose Nulman Park Foundation, with Carol B. and Joel S. Nulman as trustees, filed suit accusing Four Twenty and Lamoureux of trespass. They argued they were being prevented from exercising the full use and enjoyment of their property and asked the court to prohibit the continuing trespass. They asked that the house be removed, and that the park be returned to its original condition.

Saul Nulman, a New York City businessman, bought property neighboring the Point Judith Lighthouse in 1993, with the goal of creating a park to honor his mother. Before he died in 2006, Nulman transferred the land to the foundation with a declaration of trust establishing that it be maintained as a free, public park for recreation and contemplation.

Carol Nulman testified during a bench trial before Stern about a $1.5-million penalty provision in the trust that specifies that the park land never be sold or built upon.

Lamoureux, too, told the court that he had spent about $619,000 on construction and that the house was set on 4� acres of the park. He put the cost of moving it at $300,000 to $400,000.

In ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the Surfrider Foundation, which weighed in on the case, described the park as �a diamond on the necklace that is Rhode Island�s beautiful coastline.�

�This clear commitment of the land�s use as community space satisfies us that any attempt to build on even a portion of the property would constitute an irreparable injury not only to the plaintiff but to the public,� Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia wrote for the court.

While Lamoureux may have �clean hands,� the foundation is clearly an innocent party as well, the court said. The foundation had been put through �the inconvenience of protecting its right to its property in court as a consequence of wanting to ensure that the public would always be able to enjoy the property in its natural state.�

To force the foundation to yield any of the park would be �to effect a judicial taking of property for private benefit,� the court said.

Mark W. Freel, a lawyer for the Nulmans, did not immediately return a phone call to his office Friday.