Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]

From FLEECING FLORIDA'S LANDOWNERS.....

"Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Mason, Witherspoon, Madison and all of the other Founding Fathers knew that without a Constitution that zealously protected the property rights of its citizens, a king, a pope, a landlord, a tyrant, a battalion of soldiers, or in modern times, your trespassing neighbor or an oligarchy of five justices on the Supreme Court, could take away your property rights – natural rights founded on natural law precepts that were literally written by the blood of our forefathers."


"....Good simply means getting whatever you want, and evil is anything that might stand in your way of getting it. My desires equal my rights.

Show me a monopoly (radical eminent domain, trespassers’ rights) and I’ll show you a tyranny (Florida’s beachfront property belongs to everybody)."

They've been doing that for years.

This just popped up on facebook. I believe the original poster is Doug Freret from Destin Fl.

Dear Regency Towers and all other condo operators in Okaloosa and Walton Counties :

You do not own the entire beach in front of your property. The base rule is that you own to the mean high water line (MHWL). That line is measured over an 18.6 year cycle and is fairly hard to determine on any given day. Both Okaloosa and Walton County Sheriffs Offices have interpreted this line for claims of trespassing as either 20 or 25 feet from the water debris line.

However, on any beach that has been renourished using public funds, such as the one in front of Regency Towers and most of Okaloosa beaches east of the pass, private property only extends to the previous MHWL, a line known as the Erosion Control Line (ECL). This line lies somewhere between the dune line and the water. Pictures of the beach before renourishment show many area beaches only 30 to 50 feet wide. If you care to know the exact location of the ECL for your property, you can commission a survey. See the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection which directly addressed Destin property owners claims up to the new MHWL. They lost.

I understand the value of waterfront property and your desire to protect that value as much as possible for your condo owners. But chaining off the beach all the way to the surf line is beyond obnoxious. It is also a violation of city ordinance to set up commercial chairs within 20 feet of the water. Your baseless threats of prosecution for trespass is also likely illegal, especially for people sitting close to the water line.

Please be a good citizen and share public beaches while protecting your property rights and reporting nuisance behavior. But stop being hostile to public use of the beaches.

It's wrong and you know it. So knock it off.

Dawn and John G, here's who you can blame (although I'm preaching to the choir here - I hope). It's extremely clear to me...

Walton County and the TDC (one and the same) are to blame.​

They make little to no effort whatsoever to inform the public that "most" of the Beaches of South Walton are not public. Why?...pressure from businesses and others who financially thrive on the masses - and that's practically every business in South Walton with the obvious exception of beach front private property owners.

It truly is a very simple case of follow the money.​

Several years ago, I remember posting in this forum something along the lines that encouraging all the growth could actually backfire and actually hurt those locals who were accustomed to using public accesses without incident. I'm not sure if anybody really understood what I was trying to say. Subsequent beach nourishment efforts almost made that a moot point - but not now.

So now we have overcrowding on our public accesses putting greater and greater pressure on old time adjacent private beach, beach vendors running off the public from OUR public beaches, severe parking issues, etc.

It is out of control and the county is in a state of panic as much for political reasons as anything else.

Just in case some people don't know it, money and politics go hand in hand. But in this situation, it's not the "rich and greedy" beach front owners greasing the system.

The county's efforts to "fix" things such as with exploring customary use on any wide scale and public beach vending remind me of trying to put out an electrical fire with water.

I couldn't agree more.

I think it would be worth finding those historical posts.

I agree that the County is in a state of panic, BIG TIME. Their efforts at taking the beach via re-nourishment failed badly. That was plan A.

This new nonsense is plan B.

Like most things in this County, they were not very well thought out and thus, chaos and lawsuits to follow.

I just can't believe we now have signs, ropes, chain in addition to lines of chairs and umbrellas - now featured up and down our beaches. This is NOT acceptable regardless of private, public or otherwise owned. One or two small plain signs at a state park preserved beach that says "stay off dunes" is as far as it should ever go.

Interesting three part article about the Beach Highlands neighborhood quiet title controversy.

"The suit revolved around the plat of Beach Highlands, recorded in 1960. (Plat Book 3, Page 47). It showed an area south of the gulf front lots that was simply designated as “beach.” At the time, the entire property was owned by the Beach Highlands Corporation. The dedication, which was approved by the county commission “for record,” read as follows:

The undesigned [sic] corporation is duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida and the owners of the real-estate included in this plat, do hereby authorize the same to be recorded in the public records of Walton County, Florida and do hereby dedicate for public use all streets, alleys, roads and public places as shown on said plat.

(emphasis added).

The property owners whose lots abut the beach sued the Beach Highlands Corporation (which was dissolved in 1967) to establish that they own the beach to the mean high water. Because the Beach Highlands Corporation is long dissolved, and because none of the members of the last known board of directors is still living, the court appointed an attorney ad litem to represent the corporation. That attorney simply admitted the allegations of the complaint, resulting in the court granting summary judgment to the beach front owners. In essence, the suit was unopposed."

Who Owns the Beach? Part 1

But, wait! There's more! There were a number of other facts in that case as well. To get the complete story, we can't just read articles that are skewed toward one side or the other. The case is in the public records for your reading entertainment.

A little research revealed that back in 2006 several beach front owners in the Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision filed suit against the developer, Blue Gulf Corporation, a longtime dissolved corporation. The suit was an effort to acquire quiet title to the beach areas south of their original property boundary all the way to the mean high tide water line.

They were successful. The areas they acquired were previously marked "beach" just as in the previously mentioned Beach Highlands subdivision case. These "beach" areas were just like the other public areas in the subdivision including, trails to Redfish, beach walkovers and roads; all undeniably intended to be accessible to the neighborhood.

Now we have close to half of the Old Blue Mountain Beaches claimed by the beach front owners.

A Walton County Records search revealed several other cases extending from 2006-2012 where the defendant was Blue Gulf Corporation; most likely additional quiet title beach front acquisitions.

It appears that nobody contested these quiet titles. Interested parties could have been other homeowners in the neighborhood, neighborhood HOA, Walton County, TDC, State of Florida.

Here is a link to public notice that Old Blue Mountain Beach Front owners published in order to acquire quiet title.

The Defuniak Springs Herald - Google News Archive Search

Hopefully you noticed who the Attorney representing the plaintiffs was. None other than Mark D Davis current county attorney.

He is on the agenda Tuesday to discuss "Quiet Titles" options available to the BCC.

...........Now we have close to half of the Old Blue Mountain Beaches claimed by the beach front owners.

A Walton County Records search revealed several other cases extending from 2006-2012 where the defendant was Blue Gulf Corporation; most likely additional quiet title beach front acquisitions.

It appears that nobody contested these quiet titles. Interested parties could have been other homeowners in the neighborhood, neighborhood HOA, Walton County, TDC, State of Florida.

What specifically was there to contest?

Hopefully you noticed who the Attorney representing the plaintiffs was. None other than Mark D Davis current county attorney.

He is on the agenda Tuesday to discuss "Quiet Titles" options available to the BCC.

Good catch Bob.

Good Ole' Mark Davis smack in the middle of it.

I thought it might be G R Miller...

What specifically was there to contest?

First, I would like to clarify that I am no expert on real estate law. Here is my take:

Recent quiet title actions by beach front property owners in both Beach Highlands and Old Blue Mountain were directed at the subdivision's developers, in both instances corporations that have long since been dissolved. Furthermore the quiet title actions only addressed the corporations potential interest in the property, leaving out other interested parties, including property owners in the aforementioned subdivisions and their respective HOA, if any exists.

In my opinion these quiet title actions are deficient or flawed and could be challenged since the other interested parties, homeowners in the Old Blue Mountain Beach and Beach Highlands subdivisions, were not made a party to the quiet title action. Their interest or other interested parties interest in the beach front has not been "quieted"

Lexis check on this issue reveals the following pertinent information:

"The judgment in the quiet title action is binding and conclusive on all persons known and unknown who are parties to the action and who have any claim to the property, whether present or future, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, several or undivided [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.030(a)]. A person is one of the “parties to the action” on becoming a party in any of the ways prescribed by statute (including the quiet title statutes).

If a person is duly made a party but subsequently is dismissed, the effect of the judgment on that person is the same as if the person had never been made a party [see Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 201, 212, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603 (named defendant that was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff thereby became nonparty and was not bound by judgment)]. For discussion, see § 482.19[3].

[3] Persons Who Could Have Been Made Parties

The judgment does not affect a claim as to the property or a part of the property by any person not a party to the action—nor a successor in interest to a party, respecting the claim [Code Civ. Proc. § 1908(a)(2); see § 482.19[2]]—if either of the following conditions is satisfied [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.045]:

•The claim was of record at the time the lis pendens was “filed” (that is, recorded) or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded.
•The claim was actually known to the plaintiff or would have been reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property at the time the lis pendens was filed, or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was entered. This exception cannot be construed to impair the rights of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value dealing with the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s successors in interest.

In other words, when one of those conditions is satisfied, the claimant is not bound by the judgment—nor is a successor in interest to the claimant bound by the judgment—unless the claimant was a party to the action [see Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 201, 215–217, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603].
[4] Persons With Nonascertainable Claims

Except as provided in Code Civ. Proc. § 764.045 [see § 482.19[2], [3]], the judgment in the action is binding and conclusive on all persons who were not parties to the action and who have any claim to the property which was not of record at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.030(b)].

JK, I took yet another look at your post here and article. One could see that there could possibly be a claim by by the county based on the words used in the Beach Highlands dedication. However as mentioned in the article, "...That affidavit, along with several deeds referencing the mean high water, formed the basis for the judge’s determination that the owners of the lots along the beach owned to the mean high water."

So the judge made a determination. I guess it could be challenged in a higher court (I have no idea how that works). Now, back to Old Blue Mountain Beach...you quoted a lot legal stuff in your last post.

Can you find anything in the Old BMB dedication that could possibly be construed as the public having rights to the sandy area?

I thought it might be G R Miller...

Dead men tell no tales.

Hopefully you noticed who the Attorney representing the plaintiffs was. None other than Mark D Davis current county attorney.

He is on the agenda Tuesday to discuss "Quiet Titles" options available to the BCC.

That meeting on going on NOW 5:22PM 4/12/16

Mark Davis' comment regarding quiet title was pretty much as I expected. There's a possible claim at Beach Highlands. Old Blue Mountain Beach is different as the defunct corporation which owned the beach had in their document that those homes bordering the beach would receive title of the beach should the corporation no longer exist....pretty clear.

As mentioned by others, Mark Davis represented 4 of the beach front owners at Old BMB in this matter. It was pretty clear cut from what I've heard and read.

So are there any other quiet title debates going on out there?


It still feels like a lynch mob if you're a private beach front property owner with so many claiming ALL the beach should be public.

Of course 99% of them do not own private beach front property. No wonder the BCC is slanted and ready to pounce on and trample private property rights.

Let me say that I am really confused as to the county's consistency. For the most part I see them attempting to try and confiscate private property for public use. This is understandable if you are the "public".

Tonight, the BCC voted down (3 to 2) to build a beach access on property they already own which would lead to a public beach at the end of Shedland Drive. There were some extenuating circumstances. First a county employee said they were going to replace a walkover that was destroyed by Dennis. Based on comments made by long time residents, a walkover NEVER existed in the first place - the employee apparently presented bad information as to the history. The "blind corner" aspect was also brought up that could endanger pedestrians, cyclists etc. And there were no parking spaces involved.

One resident said all they have to do is walk 100 feet to the existing walkover in the same neighborhood. Most of the BCC agreed.

"4 to 5 months" at up to $425/hour for attorney fees...

That's what it's going to cost the county to hire an attorney to simply "explore" customary use - not file any suits.

A few citizens requested that the BCC put a maximum limit as to how much can be spent on this exploration. There was no cap set. Sara Comander asked Mark Davis to simply provide updates as to the money being spent.

Prediction:

1. Assuming the customary use attorney finds a "good enough case", the county will join in a customary use lawsuit against a single or group of private property owners.

2. The county will win at the county court - no surprise there.

3. An appeal will be filed. An injunction will also be filed preventing the public from using the private beach in question until the case is resolved. The county will probably lose.

4. In either outcome, the case will be appealed to the state supreme court. The county will lose.


The amount of money quoted in the first line of this post does not come close to what it will cost to litigate the case through all the courts, both direct and indirect costs - money that could be used for other items such as land procurement.

And all of this will take YEARS before the final outcome.

Some of you know that the county is not shy when it comes to litigation. BUT their track record has been less than stellar - and I'm not just talking about Suzanne Harris' recent cases that she won, but I guess those also support this idea. Lots of expense and bad will could have been avoided had the county just done the right thing and followed their own rules.

In this situation, the BCC will hide behind their very vocal public cheer leading constituents. If the public wants it, it must be good - right or wrong.

"For the most part I see them attempting to try and confiscate private property for public use. This is understandable if you are the "public".
From what I see it is them trying to make beachfront owners understand that they do NOT own all of the beach to the waterline and beyond.....They own to the MHWL and that is all. IF you think you own it..PROVE IT! Break out that TOPO survey or else shut up and stop trying to intimidate people from using the part that belongs to ALL the people and guests of the State Of Florida...

I thing Mr.Bagby says it best. From last nights BCC meeting:

A proposed Beach Activities Ordinance that would have prohibited placing and leaving obstructions on the beach was rescheduled for May 10. Those obstructions would include fences, ropes, chains and signs such as the ones some beachfront homeowners have placed on the beach declaring their property as private.

Commissioner Cecilia Jones noted that Walton County has a “leave no trace” ordinance on the books and it should be enforced. ( keyword here ENFORCED)

*********“This is more important than hiring Theriaque,” said Jim Bagby, the county’s former TDC director. “Most of what (beachfront property owners) are opposed to is the public setting up tents, etc. in front of their homes. Beachfront property owners may allow customary use if you get the people who are coming here under control. You’ll get support from property owners if you get this.”***************

....They own to the MHWL and that is all. IF you think you own it..PROVE IT! Break out that TOPO survey or else shut up and stop trying to intimidate people from using the part that belongs to ALL the people and guests of the State Of Florida...

I am sorry that you sometimes can't find your peace and solitude when you visit the beach. It certainly is not like it was 5 years ago....

Jodi, I take it back.

Remember, Lake View Too has mandated no hostility on SoWal.

I thing Mr.Bagby says it best. From last nights BCC meeting:

A proposed Beach Activities Ordinance that would have prohibited placing and leaving obstructions on the beach was rescheduled for May 10. Those obstructions would include fences, ropes, chains and signs such as the ones some beachfront homeowners have placed on the beach declaring their property as private.

Commissioner Cecilia Jones noted that Walton County has a “leave no trace” ordinance on the books and it should be enforced. ( keyword here ENFORCED)

*********“This is more important than hiring Theriaque,” said Jim Bagby, the county’s former TDC director. “Most of what (beachfront property owners) are opposed to is the public setting up tents, etc. in front of their homes. Beachfront property owners may allow customary use if you get the people who are coming here under control. You’ll get support from property owners if you get this.”***************

So, the guy they wanted to fire and ultimately resigned as TDC Director is giving the same idiots that wanted him gone advice...nice.

Additionally, it sounds like he (Bagby) almost agrees with the opinions that some of our tourist base needs to be "under control".

Whom better to do that than Sheriff Mike (and / or the TDC code enforcement)?

Now we may have people remove their signage and ropes, exactly what is required by an SOP... So, who's gonna Enforce that if it's passed? The same crew that caused the problem in the first place?

This place is off the rails with excuses and can kickers.

LMAO...

Again don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg

So, the guy they wanted to fire and ultimately resigned as TDC Director is giving the same idiots that wanted him gone advice...nice.

I was wondering the same thing. Why is he still so active and vocal if he's resigned? Next Commissioner?

Now we may have people remove their signage and ropes, exactly what is required by an SOP... So, who's gonna Enforce that if it's passed? The same crew that caused the problem in the first place?

I thought I'd elaborate a bit on your comment and wondered about that as well as soon as I heard it. One has to post "Private Property" signs to enforce no trespassing per Florida Code. Now the county is saying private property owners can't post No Trespassing signs because they are ugly and impede traffic? What in the world are they thinking?

Chains I can understand, as the county pretty much has an unchallenged prescriptive easement for travel across the dry sand with their vehicles.

The BCC is unconstitutionally taking away our ability to protect our property in a way mandated by Florida state law.

This place is off the rails with excuses and can kickers.

LMAO...

If it wasn't so sad and true, I'd be LMAO as well.

I was wondering the same thing. Why is he still so active and vocal if he's resigned? Next Commissioner?



I thought I'd elaborate a bit on your comment and wondered about that as well as soon as I heard it. One has to post "Private Property" signs to enforce no trespassing per Florida Code. Now the county is saying private property owners can't post No Trespassing signs because they are ugly and impede traffic? What in the world are they thinking?

Chains I can understand, as the county pretty much has an unchallenged prescriptive easement for travel across the dry sand with their vehicles.

The BCC is unconstitutionally taking away our ability to protect our property in a way mandated by Florida state law.



If it wasn't so sad and true, I'd be LMAO as well.

Doesn't live in Walton, unless he recently moved. Ran for Destin City Council.

This summer is going to be real fun. How about a compromise. In exchange for a conservation type easement for the white sand beach south of the dune line the owners get a 10% reduction on their property taxes? Allow the property owners to retain control over vending. And get serious about enforcing the "leave no trace" ordinance and the current beach activities ordinance. Otherwise the public can use the beaches as they do at the state and county parks. We can even allow the easement to expire should the ownership change so that the underlying value is not disturbed on the property. The new owner could either renew the easement or pay the full tax bill.

Doesn't live in Walton, unless he recently moved. Ran for Destin City Council.

Yes, but our elected officials actively SOUGHT his assistance at that meeting!!!

I don't know what I'm doing
D ont care what you think
I still don't care...
O h, you're offended, to bad...
T hought, we run the show, not you.
S tick it where beach sand is difficult to remove

IDIOTS...