This morning as my wife and I were returing form a shoreline walk we saw county officials asking a couple of men to move their "set up" from infront of The Retreat at Blue Mountain Beach. About an hour later my wife saw him being led from the beach in handcuffs for tresspassing. One of the men was taking pictures... maybe we'll see them post them here.
I know from reading previous posts that this is a hot button issue but it seems that some want to enforce the "letter of the law". I saw where they were placed and it was close to the water line very near the boundry of the Inn at Blue Mountain. They seemed to minding their own business. As the sherriff left I happened to walk by them and heard "I think it was the right call... where the wet sand meets the dry".
I'm confused, the beachgoers were were set up outside of the posted signs. If the owners really want to keep people out can they fence in their beach? (not that I'd want to see that)
In the many years of coming to SoWal I've always been impressed with the civility of residents and tourists -- although I have heard some horror stories. We abolutely love it here and treat it as though we already live here. But I was very surprised that it seems the owners are calling the country for what seems such a small infraction -- seems like a waste.
This was the second day in a row that I saw county officials inforcing the private beach rule.
Is the pendulum swinging?
Replies
962Beach Fanatic
I'm a long-time lurker and I don't say much but this has really struck a nerve with me! I'm admittedly uneducated on this subject but I tend to follow the Laws of Common Sense. As such, here are my thoughts.
I really don't understand why this is so complicated. The beach is for everyone to enjoy. Last I checked, no human created it. Depending on your deity/lack thereof, perhaps we should put up a sign on all beaches world-wide that says "Private Property - Owned by God/Allah/Mother Earth. No tresspassing." No one can "own" the beach. If I fish from a public beach but the fish previously swam through a privately-owned space, can I eat it for dinner or do I leave it at the doorstep of the property owner?
Sure, you don't want punks defacing your property. I understand that. But who cares if some kids or a family is sitting on the sand in front of your house? Honestly, what is the problem? Do you really think that 10-year old is going to trench under your house and cause it to collapse? Does the mere sight of a sandcastle and umbrella bother you that much? If so, why did you buy a house the beach to begin with?
Dry sand, wet sand, Tona-Roma, Supreme Court... WHO CARES. So long as you're minding your own business, pick up your belongings and trash, stay away from anyone's house or other property, what is the issue? When the neighbor's kid kicks their soccer ball into my yard do I call the cops to arrest him? No. If he wants to kick the ball around, I don't care. Again, if he starts breaking my windows or something it would be a different story. Let the beachgoers be. Come on. If you don't want to be around PEOPLE, don't buy a house in a tourist area.
The word ridiculous comes to mind.
Well put, gull!
Lovely 'tar too. Did I ever say 
kittyness. Well it's never 2 late 2 say 
, now is it?
Beach Fanatic
....and the moral of this thread? If you can't rent gulf front property for your vacation, then don't plan on spending time on the beach.
I guess it's good this issue is finally coming to a head. I wonder what it will take to get this issue in front of the Fl. state legislature? The law is not only unclear, it is applied in different ways by different law enforcement agencies.
I guess it's good this issue is finally coming to a head. I wonder what it will take to get this issue in front of the Fl. state legislature? The law is not only unclear, it is applied in different ways by different law enforcement agencies.
Beach Fanatic
BeachyQueen, yeah, eastern 30-A just hasn;t been the same since St. Joe chased out the nude gay beachgoers near Deer Lake to build Watersound.
Beach Fanatic
Thanks BeachSiO2. Rock on! Crap! Forgot to ask my other question! Do you have to own property to apply for a vehicle beach access sticker or can anyone apply? I just realized this isnt related to the thread so Ill stop after this question... Sorry.
Yes - you have to be a Walton County Property owner to get a vehicle permit for the beach.
SoWal Expert
FL Supreme Court, Tona-Rama (full report)
Even if it should be found t h a t such an easement had been acquired by prescription, the defendant-owner could make
any use of the land consistent with, or n o t calculated t o
i n t e r f e r e with, the exercise of the easement by the public.
See Tifjfany, (Third Edition), V o l . 3, Section
811. The erection of the sky tower was consistent with the
recreational use of the land by the public and could not i n t e r -
fere with the exercise of any easement the public may have acquired
by prescription, i f such w e r e the case.
The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to
use and potential development as to require separate consideration
from other lands w i t h respect to the elements and consequences
of t i t l e . The sandy portion of the beaches are of no
use for farming, grazing, t i m b e r production, or residency--
the t r a d i t i o n a l uses of land--but has served as a thoroughfare
and haven for fishermen and bathers, as w e l l as a place of
recreation for the public. The i n t e r e s t and r i g h t s of the public
to the f u l l use of the beaches should be protected. Two states,
Oregon and Hawaii, have used the "customary r i g h t s doctrine" to
afford the r i g h t s in beach property. State ex rel. Thornton v.
Bay, 254 O r e . 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969); In re: Ashford, 50 Hawaii
314, 440 P.2d 76 (1968). See also Fla. Law Review, Easements:
Judicial and Lesislative Protection of the Public's Riqhts i n
Florida's Beaches by W. Roderick Bowdoin, Vol. XXV, No. 3, pp 586-
590 (Spring 1973).
As stated in Tiffany Real Property, (Third Edition), Vol,
3, 935:
"In England, persons of a certain l o c a l i t y
or of a certain class may have, by immemorial
custom, a right to make use of land belonging
t o an individual. Thus, there may be a custom
for the inhabitants of a certain town t o dance
or play games on a particular piece of land
belonging t o an individual, or to go thereon
in order to get w a t e r . So there may be a custom
for fishermen to dry nets on certain land,
or for persons in a c e r t a i n t r a d e ( v i c t u a l e r s )
to erect booths upon c e r t a i n p r i v a t e land during
a f a i r . The custom, to be valid, 'must have
continued from t i m e i m m e m o r i a l , without
i n t e r r u p t i o n , and as of r i g h t ; it must be
c e r t a i n as to the place, and as to the
persons; and it must be c e r t a i n and reasonable
as to the subject matter or r i g h t s
created,
. . .
"Occasionally i n t h i s country it has
been decided t h a t r i g h t s to use p r i v a t e
land cannot thus be created by custom, f o r
the reason t h a t they would tend so to burden
land as to i n t e r f e r e with its improvement
and a l i e n a t i o n , and also because there can
be no usage i n t h i s country of an i m m e m o r i a l
character. In one state, on the other hand,
the existence of such customary r i g h t s is
affirmed, and i n others t h i s is assumed in
decisions adverse to the existence of the
r i g h t i n the p a r t i c u l a r case." (pp. 623-
624)
If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner. [/SIZE]However, the owner may
make any use of his property which is c o n s i s t e n t with such public
use and not calculated to i n t e r f e r e with the exercise of
the r i g h t of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recrea
t i o n a l adjunct of the w e t sand or foreshore area.
This r i g h t of customary use of the dry sand area of the
beaches by the public does not create any i n t e r e s t in the land
itself. Although t h i s r i g h t of use cannot be revoked by the
land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation
and may be abandoned by the public. The r i g h t s of the owner of
the dry sand area may be compared to r i g h t s of a part-owner of
a land-locked nannavigable lake, as described i n Duval v, Thomas,
114 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1959).
Testimony was presented t h a t the p u b l i c ' s presence on
the land and its use of the land was not adverse to the i n t e r -
est of defendant, but r a t h e r t h a t the defendant's Main S t r e e t
p i e r relied on the presence of such seekers of the sea for its
business. Thus, the issue of adversity was c l e a r l y raised and
the evidence f a i l e d to show any adverse use by the public. In
fact, the construction of the sea t o w e r was c o n s i s t e n t with the
general recreational use by the public.
may continue t o use the dry sand area for t h e i r usual recre-
The general public
a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , not because the public has any i n t e r e s t
i n the land i t s e l f , but because of a r i g h t gained through
custom to use t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area of the beach as they have
without dispute and without interruption for many years.
The decision of the D i s t r i c t Court of Appeal is quashed
and t h i s cause is remanded to the D i s t r i c t Court with instructions
to f u r t h e r remand the same to the t r i a l court for the
purpose of entering f i n a l judgment for defendant.
It is so ordered.
Even if it should be found t h a t such an easement had been acquired by prescription, the defendant-owner could make
any use of the land consistent with, or n o t calculated t o
i n t e r f e r e with, the exercise of the easement by the public.
See Tifjfany, (Third Edition), V o l . 3, Section
811. The erection of the sky tower was consistent with the
recreational use of the land by the public and could not i n t e r -
fere with the exercise of any easement the public may have acquired
by prescription, i f such w e r e the case.
The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to
use and potential development as to require separate consideration
from other lands w i t h respect to the elements and consequences
of t i t l e . The sandy portion of the beaches are of no
use for farming, grazing, t i m b e r production, or residency--
the t r a d i t i o n a l uses of land--but has served as a thoroughfare
and haven for fishermen and bathers, as w e l l as a place of
recreation for the public. The i n t e r e s t and r i g h t s of the public
to the f u l l use of the beaches should be protected. Two states,
Oregon and Hawaii, have used the "customary r i g h t s doctrine" to
afford the r i g h t s in beach property. State ex rel. Thornton v.
Bay, 254 O r e . 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969); In re: Ashford, 50 Hawaii
314, 440 P.2d 76 (1968). See also Fla. Law Review, Easements:
Judicial and Lesislative Protection of the Public's Riqhts i n
Florida's Beaches by W. Roderick Bowdoin, Vol. XXV, No. 3, pp 586-
590 (Spring 1973).
As stated in Tiffany Real Property, (Third Edition), Vol,
3, 935:
"In England, persons of a certain l o c a l i t y
or of a certain class may have, by immemorial
custom, a right to make use of land belonging
t o an individual. Thus, there may be a custom
for the inhabitants of a certain town t o dance
or play games on a particular piece of land
belonging t o an individual, or to go thereon
in order to get w a t e r . So there may be a custom
for fishermen to dry nets on certain land,
or for persons in a c e r t a i n t r a d e ( v i c t u a l e r s )
to erect booths upon c e r t a i n p r i v a t e land during
a f a i r . The custom, to be valid, 'must have
continued from t i m e i m m e m o r i a l , without
i n t e r r u p t i o n , and as of r i g h t ; it must be
c e r t a i n as to the place, and as to the
persons; and it must be c e r t a i n and reasonable
as to the subject matter or r i g h t s
created,
. . .
"Occasionally i n t h i s country it has
been decided t h a t r i g h t s to use p r i v a t e
land cannot thus be created by custom, f o r
the reason t h a t they would tend so to burden
land as to i n t e r f e r e with its improvement
and a l i e n a t i o n , and also because there can
be no usage i n t h i s country of an i m m e m o r i a l
character. In one state, on the other hand,
the existence of such customary r i g h t s is
affirmed, and i n others t h i s is assumed in
decisions adverse to the existence of the
r i g h t i n the p a r t i c u l a r case." (pp. 623-
624)
If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner. [/SIZE]However, the owner may
make any use of his property which is c o n s i s t e n t with such public
use and not calculated to i n t e r f e r e with the exercise of
the r i g h t of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recrea
t i o n a l adjunct of the w e t sand or foreshore area.
This r i g h t of customary use of the dry sand area of the
beaches by the public does not create any i n t e r e s t in the land
itself. Although t h i s r i g h t of use cannot be revoked by the
land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation
and may be abandoned by the public. The r i g h t s of the owner of
the dry sand area may be compared to r i g h t s of a part-owner of
a land-locked nannavigable lake, as described i n Duval v, Thomas,
114 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1959).
Testimony was presented t h a t the p u b l i c ' s presence on
the land and its use of the land was not adverse to the i n t e r -
est of defendant, but r a t h e r t h a t the defendant's Main S t r e e t
p i e r relied on the presence of such seekers of the sea for its
business. Thus, the issue of adversity was c l e a r l y raised and
the evidence f a i l e d to show any adverse use by the public. In
fact, the construction of the sea t o w e r was c o n s i s t e n t with the
general recreational use by the public.
may continue t o use the dry sand area for t h e i r usual recre-
The general public
a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , not because the public has any i n t e r e s t
i n the land i t s e l f , but because of a r i g h t gained through
custom to use t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area of the beach as they have
without dispute and without interruption for many years.
The decision of the D i s t r i c t Court of Appeal is quashed
and t h i s cause is remanded to the D i s t r i c t Court with instructions
to f u r t h e r remand the same to the t r i a l court for the
purpose of entering f i n a l judgment for defendant.
It is so ordered.
Edited
Beach Comber
Well put, gull!
Thanks. I try and keep my trap shut since I'm just a visitor and not a resident. However, stupidity just gets me going, regardless of my place of residence.
....and the moral of this thread? If you can't rent gulf front property for your vacation, then don't plan on spending time on the beach.
Precisely. You know the old saying about one rotten apple...
Beach Fanatic
.....BMBV I don't know how deep your pockets are but it is cheaper to buy beachfront than to nourish it! And you could not afford to do it alone! The beach needs nourishment because it is starved for sand. It is starved for sand because people put houses and condos on the sand source!How did you come to this conclusion?
Beach Comber
i was hoping for another season without a storm,......begining to think maybe we deserve one......sorry this just makes me ill. seems like yesterday i was pulling my lil boy in his wagon thru the woods and down that hill ,watchin for snakes or a possible gator were the lil trail got low. to look at the signs from the retreat, the inn at b.m. and white cliffs now, i can at least cherish the memories of the hot dogs we grilled while hoping for a pompano dinner while playing with what ever the beach or surf had to offer that day. that was then and this is now.........oh, but look how much my house is worth now!,......lucky us
Beach Fanatic
SJ, You have, without a doubt, made your point that the judicial system of the great state of Florida believes that there exists some inherent right of the public to use the beach. Just a favor, enough with all the legal quotes. Noone is debating that aspect.
But you have not addressed the requirement on a case by case basis of the public's burden of proof that the public is entitled to this use.
Please, take another look at [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=262481&postcount=122"]post #122 [/ame]and try to address it. I think this is the core issue at this point, not the Tona-Rama stuff.
Pgurney at least answered that erecting a fence is a method for interrupting access. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Florida DEP will allow a gulf front owner to erect a fence on the beach, even if it is privately owned. The turtle people would be up in arms. Then if you put up a no-trespassing sign but it's ignored, is that considered interrupted? I don't think so from what I've read.
Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?
Here we are today.
But you have not addressed the requirement on a case by case basis of the public's burden of proof that the public is entitled to this use.
Please, take another look at [ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=262481&postcount=122"]post #122 [/ame]and try to address it. I think this is the core issue at this point, not the Tona-Rama stuff.
Pgurney at least answered that erecting a fence is a method for interrupting access. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Florida DEP will allow a gulf front owner to erect a fence on the beach, even if it is privately owned. The turtle people would be up in arms. Then if you put up a no-trespassing sign but it's ignored, is that considered interrupted? I don't think so from what I've read.
Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?
Here we are today.
Beach Fanatic
I'm actually in Tennessee most of the time and I could look out my back door and see no tellin' who fishin' at any time in my yard but by the water is everybodies'. It's all about keepin' it simple to me. Just as long as your not destroying anything, why not? Our Seacrest home is across the street and come to think of it a 
lady did tell us to stay off their beach behind their building when we were only inquiring about lawn chair rentals to the private chair guy in their parking lot next to the beach walkway several years ago when we first moved there. It did make me a little 
at first but then 
for my family , daughters and SIL and hubbabubba to get harassed like that. We always went left once we got down to the beach away from their building anyway. I don't want a view of their big building from the beach anyhow. We weren't even on the dern beach yet! I did let her know all of the above in a nice way as possible but it was kinda embarassing to be havin' to run my mouth like that in front of my whole family before one of the guys said sumpin' sumpin' way worse, when just tryin' to chill at the beach and commune with nature a little on the beautiful beach. I guess we're just lucky none of the private home owners have run us off so far. I would be very sad if that happened. How would you know where to stop and set up on the beach? As long as you are not a litterbug or leaving your junk and holes and poo all over at night, then what the hey. If you are one of those then just stay off all the beaches everywhere! ;-) 
That lady moved and I've spoken to her since and she was actually pretty nice, probably just sick of litterbugs or somethin'. She didn't know I was a picker upper lady then but now she does. Sometimes you just have to speak up, but I wasn't going to sit there in the first place. WTH 
lady did tell us to stay off their beach behind their building when we were only inquiring about lawn chair rentals to the private chair guy in their parking lot next to the beach walkway several years ago when we first moved there. It did make me a little at first but then for my family , daughters and SIL and hubbabubba to get harassed like that. We always went left once we got down to the beach away from their building anyway. I don't want a view of their big building from the beach anyhow. We weren't even on the dern beach yet! I did let her know all of the above in a nice way as possible but it was kinda embarassing to be havin' to run my mouth like that in front of my whole family before one of the guys said sumpin' sumpin' way worse, when just tryin' to chill at the beach and commune with nature a little on the beautiful beach. I guess we're just lucky none of the private home owners have run us off so far. I would be very sad if that happened. How would you know where to stop and set up on the beach? As long as you are not a litterbug or leaving your junk and holes and poo all over at night, then what the hey. If you are one of those then just stay off all the beaches everywhere! ;-) That lady moved and I've spoken to her since and she was actually pretty nice, probably just sick of litterbugs or somethin'. She didn't know I was a picker upper lady then but now she does. Sometimes you just have to speak up, but I wasn't going to sit there in the first place. WTH Edited
Beach Fanatic
I wonder if the accretion on the non-nourished beach, by the nourished beach project, adjacent to the property, could be considered as being public, since it was paid for by public funding.
I'm no lawyer, though it seems to me that the non-nourished beach owners could file suit if their property is damaged due to the nourishment to the adjacent beach property.
Answer to first question is no. It cannot be considered public because it happened naturally. And that is what would happen.
Secondly, surely they would have to sign some type of disclaimer, etc... You would think anyway.
Beach Fanatic
....and the moral of this thread? If you can't rent gulf front property for your vacation, then don't plan on spending time on the beach.JB, I TOTALLY AGREE with everything you've said above.
I guess it's good this issue is finally coming to a head. I wonder what it will take to get this issue in front of the Fl. state legislature? The law is not only unclear, it is applied in different ways by different law enforcement agencies.
One comment, if you do rent off the beach, just be sure you have "undisputed" beach rights where ever you decide to stake your tent, simple as that.
The value of inland property near large parks and public beaches just jumped up. Oooops, that should have been put on the real estate thread. Sorry.
Beach Fanatic
It gets more interesting. From the FL Supreme Court:
It is possible for the public to acquire an easement in
the beaches of the State by the finding of a prescriptive r i g h t
t o the beach land. Citv of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff R e a l t y &
Investment Co., 155 Pla. 805, 21 So.2d 783 (1945), and Citv of
Miami Beach v. M i a m i Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14
So.2d 172 (1943). However, in both of the cases cited above
and relied upon by the District Court of Appeal, F i r s t D i s t r i c t ,
i n the case sub iudice, t h i s Court declined to find such prescriptive
r i g h t i n the public because of the absence of an adverse
nature in t h e p u b l i c ' s use of private beach land.
This Court in C i t v of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff Realty
& Investment Co., supra, said:
"It is true t h a t i n the e a r l i e r days preceding
the remarkable development of M i a m i
Beach, when it had a small population, many
persons used the beach for bathing, sunning
and other recreational purposes. The fact
that the upland owners did not prevent or
object to such use is not s u f f i c i e n t to show
t h a t the use was adverse or under a claim of
right. It has not been shown t h a t there has
been an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted
use of the beach by the public,
in derogation of the upland p r o p r i e t o r s '
r i g h t s , for a period of twenty years, or for
any period." 2 1 So.2d 783, p. 786.
T h i s Court in Downins vI B i r d , 100 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1958),
set forth the test f o r r i g h t of access by prescription:
"In e i t h e r prescription or adverse possession,
the r i g h t is acquired only by actual,
continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant
of the lands of another, for a prescribed
period. In addition the use must be adverse
under claim of riqht and must e i t h e r be with
the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious,
and v i s i b l e t h a t knowledge of the use
by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed
to the owner. In both r i g h t s the use
or possession must be inconsistent with the
owner's use and eniovment of his lands and
gust not be a permissive use, for the use
must be such that the owner has a r i g h t t o
a legal action t o stop it, such as an action
for t r e s p a s s o r ejectment.
"Further in e i t h e r prescription or adverse
possession, the use or possession is presumed
to be i n subordination t o the t i t l e of the
t r u e owner, and with his Permission and the
burden is on the claimant to prove t h a t the
use or possession is adverse." (Emphasis
supplied.) (p. 64)
If the use of an alleged easement is not exclusive and
not inconsistent with the r i g h t s of the owner of the land to
its use and enjoyment, kt would be presumed that such use is
permissive rather than adverse. Hence, such use w i l l never
ripen into easement. This principle was recognized i n J. C.
Vereen & Sons v. Hauser, 123 Fla. 641, 167 So. 45 (1936), where
t h i s Court quoted with approval from Jesse French Piano ti Orqan
Co. v. Forbes, 129 A l a . 471, 29 So. 683, 685, 87 Am,St.Rep. 71,
as follows:
"NO easement can be acquired when the use is
by express or implied permission, . . . The
user or enjoyment of the r i g h t claimed, in
order to become an easement by prescription,
must have been adverse to the owner of the
e s t a t e over which the easement is claimed,
under a claim of r i g h t , exclusive, continuous,
and uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and
stance always considered is whether the u s e r
is aqainst the i n t e r e s t of the party sufferins
it, or injurious to him. There must be
an invasion of the partv's r i s h t , for, unless
one loses somethins, the other sains nothinq."
(Emphasis supplied.) (p. 47)
Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.
Beach Fanatic
Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.
I think it was a copy/paste and the formatting got mucked up in the process.
SoWal Expert
SJ, You have, without a doubt, made your point that the judicial system of the great state of Florida believes that there exists some inherent right of the public to use the beach. Just a favor, enough with all the legal quotes. Noone is debating that aspect.
But you have not addressed the requirement on a case by case basis of the public's burden of proof that the public is entitled to this use.
Please, take another look at post #122 and try to address it. I think this is the core issue at this point, not the Tona-Rama stuff.
Pgurney at least answered that erecting a fence is a method for interrupting access. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Florida DEP will allow a gulf front owner to erect a fence on the beach, even if it is privately owned. The turtle people would be up in arms. Then if you put up a no-trespassing sign but it's ignored, is that considered interrupted? I don't think so from what I've read.
Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?
Here we are today.
I think you asked good questions in post 122. I don't know the answers. It seems like there are more questions than answers.
Addressing the public's burden of proof on a case by case basis, I will refer back to the Court's words,
"If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner."
This statement, IMO, reads that the owner should not be calling the Sheriff's Dept to have people arrested for simple tresspass if they are on the dry sandy beach. I think discussion could end right there.
If you think that Tona-Rama will not be used by the Courts to rule in any lawsuits regarding the public's use of the beach, you have not read the FL Supreme Court's ruling in the case, and other similar cases which I have highlighted in bold, for you.
SoWal Expert
Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.Sorry, I should have disclosed that it was copied from pdf files of old records. I tried to readjust the spacing and fonts, but it would not allow me to do so.
Beach Fanatic
Sorry, I should have disclosed that it was copied from pdf files of old records. I tried to readjust the spacing and fonts, but it would not allow me to do so.
A tip: Copy/paste the info into a word doc. Format it, then copy/paste here.
SoWal Expert
A tip: Copy/paste the info into a word doc. Format it, then copy/paste here.Good idea. Thanks.
Beach Fanatic
I think you asked good questions in post 122. I don't know the answers. It seems like there are more questions than answers.
Addressing the public's burden of proof on a case by case basis, I will refer back to the Court's words,
"If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner."
This statement, IMO, reads that the owner should not be calling the Sheriff's Dept to have people arrested for simple tresspass if they are on the dry sandy beach. I think discussion could end right there.
If you think that Tona-Rama will not be used by the Courts to rule in any lawsuits regarding the public's use of the beach, you have not read the FL Supreme Court's ruling in the case, and other similar cases which I have highlighted in bold, for you.
You still have not addressed the first word in your bolded sentence...
IF. Yes a BIG "IF", which does tie in to my post #122.
Where's Bill Clinton when you need him?
(or was it the meaning of the word "IS"?)BTW, I NEVER said or implied that the courts would not consider Tona-Rama. I have read enough of the court cases to know that I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.
Beach Fanatic
SJ, I had underlined a comment I made above:
"Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?"
Do you or any others out there have any opinions on this?
"Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?"
Do you or any others out there have any opinions on this?
SoWal Expert
You still have not addressed the first word in your bolded sentence...I think I commented on that prior to your post #122, perhaps in the other thread regarding beach ownership.
IF. Yes a BIG "IF", which does tie in to my post #122.
Where's Bill Clinton when you need him?
BTW, I NEVER said or implied that the courts would not consider Tona-Rama. I have read enough of the court cases to know that I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.
I stated that the public has been using the beach in Walton County without objection by property owners up until this year in most cases. This is the first year when The Retreat and Inn at Blue Mtn have posted signs and objected to the public's use of the beach. According to the FL Supreme Court, I think that is considered ancient and reasonable use without interruption. I will note that I am not a lawyer, and that the FL Supreme Court notes that they will take each case individually.SoWal Expert
SJ, I had underlined a comment I made above:
"Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?"
Do you or any others out there have any opinions on this?
Your question is very reasonable and sounds like a conundrum to me. Short of receiving a permit to build a fence, and posting signs, hiring a security guard sounds like the only way to defend it, but according to the Court, in another post which I quoted, the property owner should not interfear with the public's use. Therefore, I don't think they are in a situation where they "can" defend "their" property.
I'm glad that I'm not a lawyer also. I think points can be argued for both sides, but after reading a few cases of the FL Supreme Court regarding the dry beach ownership, as well as knowing that these properties have not been defended until now, I could venture a wild guess as to how the FL Courts would rule, if the public brings the right evidence to court with them, along with a great lawyer (oxymoron, unless the lawyer is on the winning team;-)).
Beach ComberAuthor
Back to the Inn at Blue Mountain Redfish Circle and the Retreat.....
Before I left I spoke with he 3-till-11 guy at the inn about the arrest on the 4th.
Now, knowing that he's just the watchman/maintenance/afternoon guy and may not be a credible source, he mentioned that there were some encroachment issues about the "private" walkover between the retreat and the inn. He had heard that the walkover was built on the Retreat's property. Can anyone confirm this?
Look for another fight, Maybe the Retreat owners are circling the wagons
Couple of thoughts:
- Does the Army Corps of Engineers have any say about beachfront access, maintenance, ownership etc?
- Does ownership of a beachfront consist of that lot owners rights to the beach or the subdivision to which the lot belongs? I wonder if the people at the back of the Retreat have similar rights to the beach as the beachfront lot owners. And if they do, do they not consist of the public?
Before I left I spoke with he 3-till-11 guy at the inn about the arrest on the 4th.
Now, knowing that he's just the watchman/maintenance/afternoon guy and may not be a credible source, he mentioned that there were some encroachment issues about the "private" walkover between the retreat and the inn. He had heard that the walkover was built on the Retreat's property. Can anyone confirm this?
Look for another fight, Maybe the Retreat owners are circling the wagons
Couple of thoughts:
- Does the Army Corps of Engineers have any say about beachfront access, maintenance, ownership etc?
- Does ownership of a beachfront consist of that lot owners rights to the beach or the subdivision to which the lot belongs? I wonder if the people at the back of the Retreat have similar rights to the beach as the beachfront lot owners. And if they do, do they not consist of the public?
SoWal Expert
- Does ownership of a beachfront consist of that lot owners rights to the beach or the subdivision to which the lot belongs? I wonder if the people at the back of the Retreat have similar rights to the beach as the beachfront lot owners. And if they do, do they not consist of the public?
I haven't looked up the ownership of The Retreat beaches, but will note that the ownership by Gulf front owners vs the sub-division varies depending on the subdivision.
Beach Fanatic
I think I commented on that prior to your post #122, perhaps in the other thread regarding beach ownership.
Actually, it is not. Unfortunately this happened a few times last year also.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.