jodiFL, many understand what you and non-beachfront owners believe but why do you believe it? What information do you base your conclusion? Just because we have done that way for years is not a valid legal criteria. The multiple custom criteria does not include the affect on the local economy. Why do you think quiet title is a nefarious (defined as wicked, evil, or criminal) way in order to claim title to property they are not entitled to? I think your first premise is that the property before quiet title was public property to start with. Patently false. Do you know for a fact it was public property before the judicial quiet title action? Lets take Blue Mountain Beach where CUers decry a celebrity property quiet title. I think because it’s easy and to get the most publicity for their misinformation. Have you or Dave Rauschkolb, or attorney Daniel Uhlfelder seen the 1948 BMB Subdivision No. 1 plat? It’s public record. Quiet title is a court proceeding heard by a judge. Like CUnCourt Judge Green. You don’t just pay $600 like Dave Rauschkolb has claimed and you have a new title. Do you know who the judge was for the BMB quiet title action? One guess. Have you seen the owner’s quiet title court documents and evidence? The BMB developer platted his private property and included “BEACH” seaward of individual parcels on the plat. Not Public BEACH. Not a dedication as public BEACH. The short version as I understand; the court determined that the developer's private BWB Subdivision No. 1 BEACH property is included in the landward property owner’s title. So the quiet title was from the private development owner to the private property parcel. NEVER was the BEACH public. Some BMB Subdivision No 1 owners have quieted their title and others have not. It is not automatic. The parcels that do not extend to the MHWL are is still BMB Subdivision No 1 private property. If you agree that the BMB BEACH has always been private property would you agree that the private property owners have the right to exclusive enjoyment of their property unless FIRST a court determines that public customary use of private property is Constitutional and meets the multiple ancient English (not American) common law custom criteria? Can you explain the legal definition of ancient common law custom? What about the other criteria? If even one criterion is not proven; customary use of private property fails. There are 26 miles of Walton beaches. About 50% or 13 miles or 68,640 feet and all 26 miles of beach foreshore seaward of the MHWL is available to the public (and BCC authorized vendors) Are you saying you can’t find a public beach or you just want the covenant private beaches the property owners have shared with you and the public over the decades? If you think quiet title is nefarious and Walton BCC had legal grounds to stop or reverse quiet title, don’t you think Walton BCC would? Thanks for sharing your belief but can you explain what justifies your belief? What is your belief based on? Facts? Law? Because Dave Rauschkolb, or Daniel Uhlfelder said so?