Led away in Handcuffs

Good question. I recall Howard Carr, developer of Cassine Gardens, and a truly nice and considerate man, maybe having something to do with it. I don't know the details, but I vaguely recall Howard being a part of the reason why One Seagrove Place (OSP) has public accesses on both sides. Kudos to OSP also, for something I mentioned two years ago. When the storms took out the public accesses in that area, OSP allowed Cassine Owners and guests, to go through OSP and use their private walkover, in order to access the beach. I'm not sure where the concept of being neighborly got lost around here, but it is really nice to see that the concept isn't completely forgotten.

I was hoping the answer was that people were being nice and sharing!!!

Good question. I recall Howard Carr, developer of Cassine Gardens, and a truly nice and considerate man, maybe having something to do with it. I don't know the details, but I vaguely recall Howard being a part of the reason why One Seagrove Place (OSP) has public accesses on both sides. Kudos to OSP also, for something I mentioned two years ago. When the storms took out the public accesses in that area, OSP allowed Cassine Owners and guests, to go through OSP and use their private walkover, in order to access the beach. I'm not sure where the concept of being neighborly got lost around here, but it is really nice to see that the concept isn't completely forgotten.

I agree OSP have been good neighbors. Also, the beach in front of OSP is publically-owned by the Bureau of Land Management (Fed's) and is under lease by the County. That is probably why there isn't too much trouble there.

So if we could just plan ahead and share, it would all be okay...............

Question:
Judging by building sizes, the area around One Seagrove Place is one of the denser/condoized areas on 30A. Why do they not seem to have these turf war & crowding issues? Or do they and I am just unaware of them? I know there are a lot more people on the beach there, but haven't heard of issues.

One Seagrove Place is surrounded by a lot of single-family homes and duplexes south of 30-A, both to the east and the west.

Besides, you can't use One Seagrove Place as an argument for building more high-density developments. It wasn't planned according to the current Walton County Land Development Code -- it was grandfathered in.

NOTE: Google Maps has many of the street names shifted a block or so in this area; for example, Seagrove Place is mislabeled.

I am most definitely not advocating increased density!!! I would be quite happy if they weren't allowed to build any more condos in Sowal.

I brought up One Seagrove Place as an example of many people being able to share and enjoy the beach if people weren't being arses about "their" beach.

I am most definitely not advocating increased density!!! I would be quite happy if they weren't allowed to build any more condos in Sowal.

I brought up One Seagrove Place as an example of many people being able to share and enjoy the beach if people weren't being arses about "their" beach.

I see what you're saying. I agree.

Good point, Scooter. What I find interesting is that, with the exception of The Retreat, the only crowded looking beaches in Blue Mtn Beach, are the ones which have the posted signs for no trespassing. :funn:

Deleted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CampCreekLou [ame="http://sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=265625#post265625"][/ame]
Vagrant,

It appears that the dark blue beaches on your image should be 'PUBLIC". Is that correct? I've labeled them "No Problem?" from the Walton County GSR. Notice how the property lines stop at the dunes.

Fair enough and yes, there are problem areas, I just didn't want to go to jail where I go to the beach

By the way, when this is resolved I am counting on you to post the map that accurately represents the BMB beach since you posted the first one. BTW, I realize that it may be the same one, but as a stand-up guy I would expect you to shoulder the glory or the blame and I will be right behind you saying you were right....or wrong

The dark blue is indeed private property (as are all the other colored parts of the beach except for green).

The dark blue is indeed private property.

Interesting. Do you have any background (or inside) information on when and how the ownership boundaries moved to the Mean High Water since the original plat just said beach and clearly defined a box of ownership for the upland owner?

Interesting. Do you have any background (or inside) information on when and how the ownership boundaries moved to the Mean High Water since the original plat just said beach and clearly defined a box of ownership for the upland owner?

The beach part "was" still owned by the original developer and NEVER deeded to the county. It is now divied (or should be) up among the gulf front lots.

SJ, you are factually incorrect here.​

It is definitely a problem now (and it was back then). That property is private property, no doubt about it. So I guess my graphic that I posted earlier on this thread is just about right...the majority of Blue Mountain Beach is private.

....back to searching for your multiple posts regarding prescriptive easements.;-)​

Well, I appreciate your concern for that property, so I double checked myself, and I stand by my statements after reading the legal description of the platted subdivision, which can be found in Plat Book 2, Page 41, Atlas Page 86.

To keep it simple for all to understand, I'll quote only the southern boundary line of the subdivision to which your refer, Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No.1:

"thence in a northwesterly direction along the bluff line of the Gulf of Mexico to a point on the East Right of Way line of said State Rd No. 83..."

I'm not sure how you are reading the parcel map, but it looks like it corresponds to the plat for that s/d.

I will also point out that the individual Gulf Front parcels in that subdivision are platted with specific depths from the road, and those do not go to the Gulf, only the dune line.

I know I've said all of this before, and that you have questioned me on this before, the plat book has not changed. I don't know how to keep showing you the same factual information, recorded in the Clerk of Courts, and get you to see the facts.

Don't feel bad if I stop replying to your circles of questions. I'm growing very tired of that and will likely not continue to do so. ;-)

The dark blue is indeed private property (as are all the other colored parts of the beach except for green).

That is incorrect information. Now you are taking what was never deeded to private entities and saying that it is privately owned. Kindly correct your posts as to not confuse people.

The beach part "was" still owned by the original developer and NEVER deeded to the county. It is now divied (or should be) up among the gulf front lots.

According to the Walton County Official Records, the beach is not part of that S/D. In order for the developer to give it to the s/d, it would have to be his to deed, and to enforce it, it would need to be recorded, and it is not recorded.

That is incorrect information. Now you are taking what was never deeded to private entities and saying that it is privately owned. Kindly correct your posts as to not confuse people.

"Kindly" refrain from calling me a liar without using the actual words.

SJ, I could say that you can be a REAL Freakin' dissapointment but I won't. My post is absolutely and positively correct. It is you, my "friend" who mislead folks on this board with your posts that exhibit some sort of authoritative air. You have a hard time dealing with anyone who disagrees with you. But resorting to this....just not the SoWal spirit.

I'll post the link because I'm a considerate guy. I'll save you the effort unlike what you did for me on the other thread today. I too grow frustrated with you and your evasiveness. Yet I continue to share real info.



Take a look....
Deed Book 141, Pages 182 and 183



Think you can handle it from here or can you find some of the recent filings on the individual lots on Blue Mountain Road on your own?

Wow! It took you a year to find some relative data on the question of ownership. Why did you wait so long to share this informative deed?

It does appear you now, have some information to help state your case for those particular lots, but before I will recognize any such ownership, I will need to see a deed stating that the beach was actually owned by the developer, and theirs to give. For some reason, I cannot seem to locate it.

Wow! It took you a year to find some relative data on the question of ownership. Why did you wait so long to share this informative deed?

It does appear you now, have some information to help state your case for those particular lots, but before I will recognize any such ownership, I will need to see a deed stating that the beach was actually owned by the developer, and theirs to give. For some reason, I cannot seem to locate it.

You're too much!!!!! (but predictable)


Are you single handedly going to reverse the "new" deeds?

SJ, its private property. Get over it.

You're too much!!!!!

um, kettle?


SJ, its no secret that you want my (our) private property for yourself and your buds. I just want to know why you think you're entitled other than "customary use" which, by the way, nobody has defined for me (i.e. frequency of visitation, quantity of people, repeatability of the same people visiting, time window in years, and of course - accurate record keeping requirements).

BMBV, I am beginning to find some interesting information based on your book and page mentioned today. It is fairly lengthy, and would mostly only confuse people as to the ownership. I apologize and acknowledge that today, for the first time, you have pointed out new information regarding deeded ownership of the beach to the east of Hwy 83. I am not an attorney and do not know without a doubt, who the correct owners are. I'll see if I can keep the new information very short for understanding by all.

-- original plat dated 1948 didn't designate any ownership of the beach -- not on the plat, not on the deed, and today, in the County's own computer maps for parcels, it shows it that way.

-- around 1955, there was a deed recorded which you shared with us today. It makes no mention to previous deeds of record showing the developer of the s/d ever bought the sandy beach. That deed states that the developer is giving the sandy beach between the Gulf front lots and the Gulf to the lot owners in the sub-division, with a caveat. If the developer, or the successors to the developer, dissolve their business, the sandy property between the gulf front lots and the Gulf would revert to the individual Gulf front owners in that S/D. The original developer dissolved and created a successor. The successor to the company dissolved by Court Order in 1973 (going from memory here so bear with me if I'm off by a year or two.) Technically speaking the beach ownership, according to the deed recorded in 1955, should have gone to the Gulf front owners at that time. A deed doesn't have to be recorded for transference to take place.

-- according to that 1955 deed, it states that if the Gulf front owners abandon the beach, it would revert back to the collective ownership by the lot owners in the s/d.

-- Sept 20, 2007, a deed was recorded in WalCo, deeding the beach to the individual Gulf front lot owners. (this was recorded 34 years after the transference was to take place according to the deed.)

-- In my non-legal opinion, since this beach property has been used by the public for a long period of time, at least 34 years, it might be said that the Gulf front owners abandoned the low elevation beach property, and it should revert back to the collective group of property owners in the entire s/d.

-- Add to that, the idea that one of the things used by the courts to determine rights of usage is the that the public has used it for over twenty years, and we are back to the question of ownership and rights to use.

-- I am much more enlightened by my research today, but this particular stretch of beach has just opened a new can of worms as to legal ownership rights, and still, there is the issue of Customary Use, as it seems that these owners have not really lost any value in all of the changes and potential changes in legal ownership, rather than it being an issue of Prescriptive Easements.

-- In summary, even outside of the public's right to use the beach for sunbathing, the issue of who had legal deed to what is going to be filled with many questions.

-- I just thought of a way you could get people to become exhibitionists on "your' beach", or at either make them move on. You could get a telephoto lense for your camera, and make people very aware that you are taking photos of them as they are wearing swimsuits, trying to relax.

-- according to that 1955 deed, it states that if the Gulf front owners abandon the beach, it would revert back to the collective ownership by the lot owners in the s/d.

-- Sept 20, 2007, a deed was recorded in WalCo, deeding the beach to the individual Gulf front lot owners. (this was recorded 34 years after the transference was to take place according to the deed.)

Hmmmm. :scratch: This is what it looks like to me. After researching those old deeds, the beachfront owners saw a way they could claim ownership of the beach, hence the 2007 deed. Of course, they also cut out the non-beachfront owners in the s/d. I wonder how those folks feel about this new deed? :shock: They had to do it that way, because otherwise they would have to admit that the beachfront owners had abandoned the beach.

I'm sure we will see "private beach" signs sprouting this summer, especially after the TDC finishes renovating the access there.

This is all very interesting, but nothing here really solves the customary use issue which, imo, is still going to need to be resolved in the courts.

NotDeadYet, you ask a good question about the other owners in the S/D. I'm guessing that since they don't have an active homeowners association, they are unaware of this newly recorded deed. Once they discover this, I'd guess that they will be filing suit claiming the gulf front owners abandoned the beach for 34 years, and therefore ownership reverted back to them. The recent deed is a CYA, but in my non-legal opinion, it is about 25 years too late.

I still cannot wait to see the future owners and guests in RedFishVillage and the Lakeside s/d to the north, all fit onto that one lot to the west of the 83Access. Should be rather interesting. I'm not sure where the Sanctuary at Redfish owners and guests will be setting up chairs once they take the boat over to the beach. I'm guessing the Sanctuary by the Sea owners will be okay, since they built right up to the beach, but you never know around here. IMO, Blue Mtn Beach will be going abruptly downhill from here.

I still say I will plop my a** anywhere on the beach. I welcome someone to come over and ask me to move it...

A little off-topic, but does anyone knows if the county has a definition for "wet sand?" I walk along the shore almost everyday and wonder at which point the sand would be considered dry ? legally.

the person who claims it's his could show you the survey that was taken that day...