I'm not mixing anything, I'm simply quoting how the courts in Florida have defined customary use.
Sorry, I wish I could make simple answers to difficult questions.
CatMoney, you at least had an answer. Thanks. It’s a partial answer to the question of what are the historical criteria and limits to a claim of custom I think. Danny claims to know what the historic custom criteria are but refuses to explain when asked. Which limits his credibility on the subject of customary-use to just his opinion and emotional outcries that the sky is falling if commissioners do not litigate custom against 1,000 Walton private property owners -- at the cost of million$ of tax payer dollars and the likelihood of getting nothing in return, I think. If you don’t understand historical common-law custom how can you have an informed opinion if it applies in Walton? But understanding custom takes study and time.
No, I do not know what the trial court ruled after the Appellate court found for the property owners. I’m guessing they just found for the property owners or we would have heard about it again. I hope the property owners got their attorney fees paid by the county.
“Customary-use” as Danny and Dave R use it is not an independent legal idea that is unique to private property with its own criteria made of whatever Commissioners, Danny or Dave hope it to be to get what they want regardless of individual Constitution private property rights. That’s a slippery slope. Custom as a source of common-law has a history and precedent. And many legal scholars more informed than me think that American courts, FL Supreme Court, Texas, and Oregon too have twisted and ignored the historical precedent of custom to suite their political (Big brother) desires that they cannot obtain public property rights legally any other way but to claim custom. Why wouldn't the Commissioners claim prescription or dedication instead of custom?
I see now where you copied the section the Appellate court for reference states; “In Florida, courts have recognized that the public may acquire rights to the dry sand areas [any property area it does not have to be dry sand] of privately owned portions of the beach through the alternative methods of prescription, dedication, and
custom.” The court talked about all three ways for the public to gain access to private property without owner permission. Then summarizes the FL Supreme Court Tona-Rama recognition of public customary use you copied. The summary was not an agreement but a restatement of Tona-Rama for reference.
It looked like you had done what many private property rights opponents do by “cherry picking” sections they agree with out of context of the law or ruling. The Appellate court in the next paragraph states; “This appeal requires us to confront several issues relating to the law of "custom" applied to Florida's beaches that have not directly been confronted before.” “If Tona-Rama did not establish a "customary" right, as a matter of law, how is the right established in an individual case such as this one?”
In discussing how a customary right is established, a key Appellate court statement is; “
IF [emphasis added] the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim.” Danny and Dave R read that carefully. I read that to say; time is not enough, you need more for a valid custom so you need to know what all the criteria are. Because if the bar is so low then anyone could claim custom about anything done for a "long" time.
That’s the question. What are the historical precedents and limits of common-law custom claims on private property? England since the Middle Ages legally had to deal with quantifying what common-law custom was and wasn’t and abuses with the claim of custom if not limited, hundreds of years before there was an United States of America. American jurisprudence has relied on English common-law custom as precedence since 1776.
Much of American common law is based on the leading legal treatise discussing the doctrine of custom by Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England". Blackstone described the limits of custom. So maybe study Blackstone treatise on custom would be a good start to understand what a valid custom is and isn’t. That’s why the bar is set so high because individual private property rights are so highly treasured. Blackstone also stated; "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community."
Custom is not just time and even then the time has to be ancient, not 54 years or as long as Danny can remember as he has suggested. And an economic benefit of the majority at the expense of individual private property rights is not a custom criteria either. When all else fails claim custom.
Let’s start talking facts and stop the emotional opinions and name calling about greedy, elite property owners and stop the Commissioners legislating, then litigating, against 1,000 of its citizens to take the property rights owners have today. What if property owners prevail? Millions of tax dollars wasted and Commissioners will HAVE to deal with angry beachfront property owners then. Private property owners should not have to bear the economic burden of inept Commissioners by claiming customary-use. There are 32,369 feet of public beaches and 5,800+ acres of public parks with parking, restrooms, and camping; if that's not enough for Commissioners, Danny, or Dave R then buy the property rights like owners have and respect owner property rights that they have had and have today.
