By Dotty Nist Defuniak Herald
A recent court ruling has rejected the argument of homeowners in the interior of the Gulf Trace subdivision that the dedication of a 10-foot-wide walkway to the beach created an easement for all subdivision lot owners to access and use the subdivision beachfront.
In a July 28 order, Walton County Acting Circuit Judge David W. Green found that the 10-foot-wide strip recorded in the subdivision plat “creates an easement for a walkway to the beach, not along or across the beachfront.”
The order granted a motion for summary judgment by Elizabeth and David Bradford, defendants in the lawsuit, in connection with Count I of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit had been filed in August 2015 in Walton County Circuit Court by plaintiffs Randy New and Russell Tippins. It was prompted, according to their complaint, by actions of the Bradfords, Gulf Trace beachfront property owners, to prevent other Gulf Trace homeowners and the public from accessing the beach south of the vegetation line on their lot.
Those actions had included signs placed near a walkway to the beach adjacent to Bradfords’ lot, a walkway the plaintiffs maintain has been used by Gulf Trace homeowners and guests in the past.
The signs stated, “No trespassing; this beach is private from here to the wet sand and 78′ to the west.” The plaintiffs’ complaint also referenced threats by the Bradfords to have people arrested for trespass on what the beachfront owners maintain is their private beach.
The 10-foot-wide strip in question is identified as one recorded in the subdivision plat and which, the complaint noted, shows an easement between the Bradford property and another beachfront lot (Lot 14), the easement described as “a walkway to the beach.”
In their complaint, New and Tippins emphasized that the plat specifically referred to a walkway to “the beach,” as opposed to a walkway to the “Gulf of Mexico.”
They contended that, with the dedication of the walkway to the beach, the plat “necessarily granted, by implication, an easement to all Gulf Trace lot owners,” for access to and use of the subdivision beachfront seaward of the line of permanent vegetation.
For the plat dedication to be construed otherwise than as granting use of the dry sandy area on beachfront lots in the subdivision south of the vegetation line to all Gulf Trace subdivision lot owners would render meaningless the term “the beach” in the plat dedication, the argument continued, “and would deprive the Gulf Trace owners, such as the Plaintiffs, of the rights reasonably necessary for the full use and enjoyment of the dedicated easement itself.”
In his July 28 order, Judge Green made the finding that, “It is clear and unambiguous that the plat and the dedication grant only an easement across the 10-foot strip of land that is clearly depicted on the plat.”
“Nothing on the plat or elsewhere provides any ground for this Court to find or create an easement by implication,” Green wrote.
The July 28 order was related to Count I of the lawsuit.
A second count or cause of action contained in the complaint invoked the doctrine of customary use, stating, “From Grayton Beach to Topsail Hill Preserve State Park in South Walton County, the public at large, including residents and visitors to Walton County, Florida, have utilized the dry sandy area of the beaches adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and seaward of the line of permanent vegetation. …for traditional recreational purposes since time immemorial.”
Included in the section are the beachfront of the Gulf Trace subdivision and other beaches such as Blue Mountain Beach, Dune Allen and Beach Highlands.
The plaintiffs made the argument that the use of the beach section by the public for traditional recreation “has historically been reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute,” and that the public therefore has “a customary right to use the dry sandy areas” seaward of the vegetation line from Grayton Beach to Topsail Hill Preserve State Park for such recreation.
No decision regarding Count II was provided in connection with the July 28 order, but the court did not rule out that rights to use of the beach might exist in connection with the customary use argument.
As part of the order, Green wrote, “The Plaintiffs may have some rights under which they are authorized to use the beach area, and those rights may or may not exist under the theory the Plaintiffs claim in Count II, but this Court finds as a matter of law that no easement exists for use of the land along the entire beachfront area of the Gulf Trace subdivision under the terms of the easement shown on the plat.”
New and Tippins filed an amended complaint on Aug. 16, renewing their demand for, among other relief, a declaratory judgment by the court that the public, including the plaintiffs and other owners, residents and guests within the subdivision, are entitled to use the dry sandy portion of the Bradford property adjacent to the gulf for “traditional recreational purposes.”
David Theriaque of Theriaque & Spain is representing the plaintiffs. Representatives for the defendants are William J. Dunaway, Robert J. Powell, and William D. Stokes of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse.
A recent court ruling has rejected the argument of homeowners in the interior of the Gulf Trace subdivision that the dedication of a 10-foot-wide walkway to the beach created an easement for all subdivision lot owners to access and use the subdivision beachfront.
In a July 28 order, Walton County Acting Circuit Judge David W. Green found that the 10-foot-wide strip recorded in the subdivision plat “creates an easement for a walkway to the beach, not along or across the beachfront.”
The order granted a motion for summary judgment by Elizabeth and David Bradford, defendants in the lawsuit, in connection with Count I of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit had been filed in August 2015 in Walton County Circuit Court by plaintiffs Randy New and Russell Tippins. It was prompted, according to their complaint, by actions of the Bradfords, Gulf Trace beachfront property owners, to prevent other Gulf Trace homeowners and the public from accessing the beach south of the vegetation line on their lot.
Those actions had included signs placed near a walkway to the beach adjacent to Bradfords’ lot, a walkway the plaintiffs maintain has been used by Gulf Trace homeowners and guests in the past.
The signs stated, “No trespassing; this beach is private from here to the wet sand and 78′ to the west.” The plaintiffs’ complaint also referenced threats by the Bradfords to have people arrested for trespass on what the beachfront owners maintain is their private beach.
The 10-foot-wide strip in question is identified as one recorded in the subdivision plat and which, the complaint noted, shows an easement between the Bradford property and another beachfront lot (Lot 14), the easement described as “a walkway to the beach.”
In their complaint, New and Tippins emphasized that the plat specifically referred to a walkway to “the beach,” as opposed to a walkway to the “Gulf of Mexico.”
They contended that, with the dedication of the walkway to the beach, the plat “necessarily granted, by implication, an easement to all Gulf Trace lot owners,” for access to and use of the subdivision beachfront seaward of the line of permanent vegetation.
For the plat dedication to be construed otherwise than as granting use of the dry sandy area on beachfront lots in the subdivision south of the vegetation line to all Gulf Trace subdivision lot owners would render meaningless the term “the beach” in the plat dedication, the argument continued, “and would deprive the Gulf Trace owners, such as the Plaintiffs, of the rights reasonably necessary for the full use and enjoyment of the dedicated easement itself.”
In his July 28 order, Judge Green made the finding that, “It is clear and unambiguous that the plat and the dedication grant only an easement across the 10-foot strip of land that is clearly depicted on the plat.”
“Nothing on the plat or elsewhere provides any ground for this Court to find or create an easement by implication,” Green wrote.
The July 28 order was related to Count I of the lawsuit.
A second count or cause of action contained in the complaint invoked the doctrine of customary use, stating, “From Grayton Beach to Topsail Hill Preserve State Park in South Walton County, the public at large, including residents and visitors to Walton County, Florida, have utilized the dry sandy area of the beaches adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and seaward of the line of permanent vegetation. …for traditional recreational purposes since time immemorial.”
Included in the section are the beachfront of the Gulf Trace subdivision and other beaches such as Blue Mountain Beach, Dune Allen and Beach Highlands.
The plaintiffs made the argument that the use of the beach section by the public for traditional recreation “has historically been reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute,” and that the public therefore has “a customary right to use the dry sandy areas” seaward of the vegetation line from Grayton Beach to Topsail Hill Preserve State Park for such recreation.
No decision regarding Count II was provided in connection with the July 28 order, but the court did not rule out that rights to use of the beach might exist in connection with the customary use argument.
As part of the order, Green wrote, “The Plaintiffs may have some rights under which they are authorized to use the beach area, and those rights may or may not exist under the theory the Plaintiffs claim in Count II, but this Court finds as a matter of law that no easement exists for use of the land along the entire beachfront area of the Gulf Trace subdivision under the terms of the easement shown on the plat.”
New and Tippins filed an amended complaint on Aug. 16, renewing their demand for, among other relief, a declaratory judgment by the court that the public, including the plaintiffs and other owners, residents and guests within the subdivision, are entitled to use the dry sandy portion of the Bradford property adjacent to the gulf for “traditional recreational purposes.”
David Theriaque of Theriaque & Spain is representing the plaintiffs. Representatives for the defendants are William J. Dunaway, Robert J. Powell, and William D. Stokes of Clark Partington Hart Larry Bond & Stackhouse.