• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

James Bentwood

Beach Fanatic
Feb 24, 2005
1,592
646
By DOTTY NIST

Court judgments involving the owners of three Blue Mountain Beach parcels have provided for beach property south of their lots, extending to the mean high water line (MHWL), to become the property of those owners.

The beach property is located in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1 south of Lot 5, Block 12, Lot 2, Block 12, and the west 70 feet of Lot 8, Block 10.

Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green issued final summary judgments on the beach property on Sept. 15.

This was following hearings in which arguments were presented on behalf of owners of the three lots that each of those owners was entitled to ownership of the property to the south.

In June and July 2023, the property owners had filed complaint lawsuits in court against Blue Gulf Corporation, an entity that had been dissolved in 1973, according to information provided in the complaints.

According to the final judgments, a plat recorded in October 1948 had stated that West Florida Development Company was “fee simple” (outright) owner at that time of all properties within the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1, including the property “south of the bluff line” at the southern boundary of the subdivision extending to the MHWL along the Gulf of Mexico.

The judgments also speak of a covenant recorded in 1955 in Walton County official records stating that all deeds covering lots sold to individual owners in the subdivision provide for “all of the beach area lying between Block 10, 11, 12, and 13” in the subdivision and the gulf to be conveyed to the owners of the lots and their successors in the four blocks at no cost to those parties—in the event of neither West Florida Development Company, nor a successor to that corporation holding title to the beach area, being in existence.

The covenant contains the restriction that owners of the beach property must “not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1,” per the covenant language.

According to the judgments, Blue Gulf Corporation, a successor of West Florida Development Company, like the latter, “does not exist.”

Judge Green made findings in the judgments that, “There is no evidence of a successor to Defendant, Blue Gulf Corporation, and…all of the members of the last known Board of Directors of the defendant are deceased.”

He also found that there was “no genuine issue as to any material fact or law” alleged in the complaints.

No party had presented evidence in opposition to the lot owners’ filings.

The notices for the hearings on the beach property had been for 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 15 via ZOOM. However the hearings began early and were concluded prior to 9:30 a.m.

The judgments appointed attorney Hayward Dykes Jr. as trustee for the dissolved development company and successor corporation and tasked him with officially transferring ownership by deed of the beach property to the lot owners. The conveyance is subject to the restriction providing for use of the beach area by property owners in the subdivision.

Similar summary judgments had been issued in 2007 in connection with three neighboring parcels in the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1

A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13 on an additional parcel in the same subdivision. The owner of the parcel, Lot 3, Block 13, is also seeking a judgment providing for conveyance of beach property south of the lot, extending to the MHWL, to the property owner.

 

Jimmy T

Beach Fanatic
Apr 6, 2015
926
1,304
By DOTTY NIST

Court judgments involving the owners of three Blue Mountain Beach parcels have provided for beach property south of their lots, extending to the mean high water line (MHWL), to become the property of those owners.

The beach property is located in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1 south of Lot 5, Block 12, Lot 2, Block 12, and the west 70 feet of Lot 8, Block 10.

Walton County Circuit Court Judge David Green issued final summary judgments on the beach property on Sept. 15.

This was following hearings in which arguments were presented on behalf of owners of the three lots that each of those owners was entitled to ownership of the property to the south.

In June and July 2023, the property owners had filed complaint lawsuits in court against Blue Gulf Corporation, an entity that had been dissolved in 1973, according to information provided in the complaints.

According to the final judgments, a plat recorded in October 1948 had stated that West Florida Development Company was “fee simple” (outright) owner at that time of all properties within the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1, including the property “south of the bluff line” at the southern boundary of the subdivision extending to the MHWL along the Gulf of Mexico.

The judgments also speak of a covenant recorded in 1955 in Walton County official records stating that all deeds covering lots sold to individual owners in the subdivision provide for “all of the beach area lying between Block 10, 11, 12, and 13” in the subdivision and the gulf to be conveyed to the owners of the lots and their successors in the four blocks at no cost to those parties—in the event of neither West Florida Development Company, nor a successor to that corporation holding title to the beach area, being in existence.

The covenant contains the restriction that owners of the beach property must “not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1,” per the covenant language.

According to the judgments, Blue Gulf Corporation, a successor of West Florida Development Company, like the latter, “does not exist.”

Judge Green made findings in the judgments that, “There is no evidence of a successor to Defendant, Blue Gulf Corporation, and…all of the members of the last known Board of Directors of the defendant are deceased.”

He also found that there was “no genuine issue as to any material fact or law” alleged in the complaints.

No party had presented evidence in opposition to the lot owners’ filings.

The notices for the hearings on the beach property had been for 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 15 via ZOOM. However the hearings began early and were concluded prior to 9:30 a.m.

The judgments appointed attorney Hayward Dykes Jr. as trustee for the dissolved development company and successor corporation and tasked him with officially transferring ownership by deed of the beach property to the lot owners. The conveyance is subject to the restriction providing for use of the beach area by property owners in the subdivision.

Similar summary judgments had been issued in 2007 in connection with three neighboring parcels in the Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1

A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13 on an additional parcel in the same subdivision. The owner of the parcel, Lot 3, Block 13, is also seeking a judgment providing for conveyance of beach property south of the lot, extending to the MHWL, to the property owner.

Ridiculous!
 

conch

Beach Comber
Mar 5, 2010
48
30
I am certain that those property owners are very pleased that they can now look out at "their" beach!
Not only that, but they can now RULE over "their" beach, and have the sheriff remove all those pesky beach goers,
who ruin the view with their beach towels, umbrellas, and happy playing kids.
I can't wait to see the fences go up on each property line.

This entire mess will certainly result in folks avoiding the {privately owned} beaches of the "emerald coast",
and chose to vacation at another vacation spot.

Question: What does ownership of the beach add to the property owners tax burden? Since the beach is "priceless" the county should add that value to the tax bill of each owner. The county can then use those additional funds to pay for all the additional costs related to this fiasco!
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,862
9,670
Ultimately this will hurt tourism which will hurt everything else in our county.

Remember this when longtime businesses start boarding up.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,383
413
Ridiculous!
Yes, I'm back. And no, it's not ridiculous. Gosh, I just had a flashback that my favorite restaurateur loved to also use that word here on SoWal.

So after years and years of debate regarding Old Blue Mountain Beach and who actually has rights to it, the fact remains that the county never had any ownership interest in the property which was owned by the Blue Gulf Corporation with exclusive rights extended to the subdivision.

Now that the Blue Gulf Corporation is defunct, someone ENTITLED to own the property (adjacent upland beachfront owner) had the right to file quiet title. The quiet title process simply clears up the ownership of the property. Contrary to many ignorant perceptions, the quiet title process along the beach is NOT taking away beach front property from the public. It's simply "clearing the air" regarding the title. Once again, the county (public) never had an interest in this property. On the other hand, the Old Blue Mountain Beach front property was encumbered for the exclusive use of ALL (and only) of Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision, but not the public, as this was private property.

For the less informed, and those who perpetuated the outright lie that beach front owners were "stealing" beach front property with a lawyer and a $400 filing fee (Florida Beaches for All and their disciples) , it is just that: misinformation. Believe it if you want, but the judge and lawyers (including the county's lawyer) have to (and did) sign off on the process.

How can anyone honestly think that a local judge would sign off on the concept of "stealing beach front property from the public"?

BTW, attorney Mark Davis filed many of these quiet titles in Blue Mountain many years ago. He subsequently became the county attorney who helped spearhead the customary use debacle for the county. Do you think he would have filed these if there was the slightest issue in doing so?

Ultimately this will hurt tourism which will hurt everything else in our county.

Remember this when longtime businesses start boarding up.

This particular issue (quiet title) will not hurt tourism at all as nothing has changed.

Question: What does ownership of the beach add to the property owners tax burden? Since the beach is "priceless" the county should add that value to the tax bill of each owner. The county can then use those additional funds to pay for all the additional costs related to this fiasco!
This idea of increasing the tax as mentioned because the value is "priceless", as stated above, GOES COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORYLY against another supported myth perpetuated by the organization, Florida Beaches for All and their disciples, which has been discussed over the years on this forum. That is since one can not build on the beach, it's value is zero. And therefore the county should be able to seize the property through eminent domain and pay ZERO for the property. Can't have it both ways.

One's property valuation is mainly determined by relatively recent sales prices, period. It does happen that beach front property is obviously more valued by buyers than non-beach front property. And beach front property that has private beach is valued even higher that beach front property that is not private. I know I didn't have to spell this out for most people.
 

leeboy

Beach Fanatic
Aug 19, 2015
273
122
Ridiculous that Blue Mountain Beach used to be a beautiful quiet stretch of beach.

Disgusting is a better word.
 

Jimmy T

Beach Fanatic
Apr 6, 2015
926
1,304
All that screed is to justify somebody acquiring land through an underhanded legal tactic that did not belong to them, which is both ridiculous and disgusting.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter