Spelling's long-running fight over leaky roof reaches end. (Law).

HOME-sweet-litgious-home.

A recent appellate ruling appears to have closed the door on a decade-long string of lawsuits surrounding construction of Aaron Spelling's 56,500-square-foot Holmby Hills mansion.

The television producer and his wife, Candy, won a Nov. 8 appellate ruling in a malicious prosecution claim brought by now defunct R.W. LaMar Construction Inc., the contractor that built their house. LaMar brought the malicious prosecution claim in 1996 after a jury ruled against the couple in their $12 million breach of contract and fraud suit against it.

In the claim, company president Robert LaMar argued that the Spellings had no reason to file their fraud claim. Judge Victor Person, in the state's 2nd Appellate District, disagreed.

"The impetus for the 1996 lawsuit was the fact that the roof leaked, two experts who investigated had opined that the home contained construction defects and wrong materials were used, and the Spellings claimed that LaMar had not informed them of the changes," Person wrote in the recent ruling. "These facts were all that were needed to lead a reasonable attorney to conclude a lawsuit was viable."

Parties often file malicious prosecution claims to obtain damages after winning a lawsuit they claim was brought against them with malice and without probable cause.

The ruling against LaMar came despite videotape that depicted Candy Spelling whacking apart a LaMar sign with a hatchet to celebrate the end of the four-year construction of the Spellings' home in 1991.

The Spelling's attorney, Edward Woods, said the recent ruling ends the litigation between both parties. "I think there's relief on the part of everyone," said Woods, a partner at Browne & Woods LLP in Beverly Hills.

Ted Gropman, a Woodland Hills sole practioner representing LaMar, said he was disappointed.

"It seems like there's an outright hostility to malicious prosecution claims," Gropman said. "And I think it was appropriate for them to sue for breach of contract. What it was not right to do was sue for fraud. It was a simple roof-leak case. It was malicious prosecution."

He said LaMar closed its doors a few years ago and couldn't say whether the closure was related to the litigation matters with the Spellings or whether the ruling would be appeal.

The Spellings had sued the contractor for construction defects just after the home was completed. They received $1.2 million, while the contractor got $650,000 as part of an 18-page settlement agreement in 1993 (apart from the second suit in 1996, which is the subject of the appellate ruling).

Staff reporter Amanda Bronstad can be reached at [phone] ext. 225, or at [e-mail].