Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[Dave Rauschkolb]

looks like someone bet on a pair of 10's



Landers v. Milton
Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach
Harbor Beach Surf Club, Inc. v. Water Taxi of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc.
Andrews v. Department of Natural Resources, State of Fla.
Bryan v. City of West Palm Beach
White v. Hughes
Lomack v. Mowrey
Harris v. City of Neptune Beach
Landa v. Charles S. Whiteside, Inc.
Wamser v. City of St. Petersburg, 339 So.2d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
Breaux v. City of Miami Beach
Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, Inc.
Avallone v. Board of County Com'rs of Citrus County
McPhee v. Dade County
Janes v. Consolidated Inns of Daytona Beach
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources v. Garcia

Plus 1300 cases of drownings involving lack of lifeguards!

Pocket tens or even a pair of tens are usually a pretty good starting hand so you must not be a poker player. Thank you for the information; I’d love to know the details on each I’m talking about private beachfront owners not corporate entities and in each did they actually “own” the sand to the waterline?

And I’ll beginning to see you might just be one of the lawyers in this case. With all this legal information at your fingertips. Breadcrumbs

 

[Stone Cold J]

You can find a lot of information using Google for those willing to educate themselves.

Pairs of 10's ain't bad, but I would not go all in with a pair of 10's, especially when I know the Supreme Court has a Royal Flush.

 

[mputnal]

Random thoughts: Royal Flush. Hmm that seems about right How many years will it take to get to the Supreme Court? Wonder how many property line disputes have been settled using Customary Use? I know of at least two. In one case the landowner owned a property but the fence was set back 10 feet on his side by mistake. He paid the taxes on that 10feet. His neighbor owned cows and the cows grazed the field all the way up to the fence for over 25 years. Guess who won this in court?

 

[Reggie Gaskins]

Malarkey

Malarkey
Mü•lár•kee
Mülárkee
Noun
Collective generalization
Or, Legal Term
Example:
Malarkey = 1,300 documented legal cases where Florida beach property owners were sued by individuals suffering injury or death on said properties

Good to know that definition, thx

 

[mputnal]

Stone Cold J You have to have to be an attorney to get case information like that and that fast. Westlaw is pretty expensive so you must be an active attorney. Information is good!

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Malarkey
Mü•lár•kee
Mülárkee
Noun
Collective generalization
Or, Legal Term
Example:
Malarkey = 1,300 documented legal cases where Florida beach property owners were sued by individuals suffering injury or death on said properties

Good to know that definition, thx

Touché, now you got me laughing. That’s a good one.

 

[miznotebook]

If liability is such a concern, wonder why there have been so many quiet title actions on the beach.

 

[mputnal]

There is a lot of misdirection going on here. Liability is not relevant to the lawsuit. Liability does have relevance to property owners, the county and the State but that is a non issue in terms of this lawsuit. Lawyers are good at misdirection, deflection and ambiguous wording. Politicians are also adept at those things. Some of the power brokers in this forum are lawyers. Just my opinion but I would trust your conscience over these power brokers. This whole thread was meant to distract you from the fact that BPO's want the power to exclude anyone on the beach. What is unfortunate is that tax payers must pay to protect their right to the beach. BPO's want you to blame The People and local government which is misdirection. Now BPO's will tell you that there is plenty of beach to go around so stay off ours please. Again misdirection. The People need to be aware that if BPO's win this lawsuit there will be less and less beach every year. The power to exclude will become an abuse of power. Trust your conscience!

 

[Stone Cold J]

BPO's want the power to exclude anyone on the beach.

mputnal, the BCC is suing private property owner to TAKE private property rights (right of exclusion) and FORCE unlimited occupation of private deeded property of beach equipment and people AGAINST the will of the property owner.

Each property owner (BPO and non-BPO) may decide what to do with their property as it relates to density management and access (family and guests only, paying renters, only locals, allowing unlimited tourists, etc).

People have always had the ability to walk all 26 miles of the coastline, swim, surf, build sandcastles, play, watch sunsets, take and family pictures. The restriction has always related to day camping (beach equipment). People could only day camp on public property or with permission of the property owner (which includes the State of Florida, US Military, and private deeded property owners). BPO's and non-BPO's have always had the right to EXCLUDE people from their private deeded property. If people were on private property and were asked to move, they moved. That is ancient customary use in Walton County. Property owners have always had this right and will continue to unless the US Supreme Court overturns that property right. Looks like some locals want to bet a pair of 10's and are going all in with MILLIONS OF WALTON COUNTY TAXPAYER DOLLARS betting that the US Supreme Court is going to overturn private property rights.

PRIOR TO 2016, the BCC acknowledged private property rights. If the BCC thought they already owned the rights to all the property why would they buy property for Public Beaches?

Tourists have grown exponentially in Walton County and far exceed what our infrastructure can handle.

 

[mputnal]

Listen to your conscience! The power brokers are lawyers, politicians and the very rich. The BCC had no choice. Ask them. As a matter of fact all of us should draft letters NOW to your representatives. We have a representative democracy. The People will have NO voice if we leave this to the power brokers.