Led away in Handcuffs

[seacrestkristi]

I'm actually in Tennessee most of the time and I could look out my back door and see no tellin' who fishin' at any time in my yard but by the water is everybodies'. It's all about keepin' it simple to me. Just as long as your not destroying anything, why not? Our Seacrest home is across the street and come to think of it a lady did tell us to stay off their beach behind their building when we were only inquiring about lawn chair rentals to the private chair guy in their parking lot next to the beach walkway several years ago when we first moved there. It did make me a little at first but then for my family , daughters and SIL and hubbabubba to get harassed like that. We always went left once we got down to the beach away from their building anyway. I don't want a view of their big building from the beach anyhow. We weren't even on the dern beach yet! I did let her know all of the above in a nice way as possible but it was kinda embarassing to be havin' to run my mouth like that in front of my whole family before one of the guys said sumpin' sumpin' way worse, when just tryin' to chill at the beach and commune with nature a little on the beautiful beach. I guess we're just lucky none of the private home owners have run us off so far. I would be very sad if that happened. How would you know where to stop and set up on the beach? As long as you are not a litterbug or leaving your junk and holes and poo all over at night, then what the hey. If you are one of those then just stay off all the beaches everywhere! ;-) That lady moved and I've spoken to her since and she was actually pretty nice, probably just sick of litterbugs or somethin'. She didn't know I was a picker upper lady then but now she does. Sometimes you just have to speak up, but I wasn't going to sit there in the first place. WTH

 

[yippie]

I wonder if the accretion on the non-nourished beach, by the nourished beach project, adjacent to the property, could be considered as being public, since it was paid for by public funding.

I'm no lawyer, though it seems to me that the non-nourished beach owners could file suit if their property is damaged due to the nourishment to the adjacent beach property.

Answer to first question is no. It cannot be considered public because it happened naturally. And that is what would happen.

Secondly, surely they would have to sign some type of disclaimer, etc... You would think anyway.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

....and the moral of this thread? If you can't rent gulf front property for your vacation, then don't plan on spending time on the beach.

I guess it's good this issue is finally coming to a head. I wonder what it will take to get this issue in front of the Fl. state legislature? The law is not only unclear, it is applied in different ways by different law enforcement agencies.

JB, I TOTALLY AGREE with everything you've said above.

One comment, if you do rent off the beach, just be sure you have "undisputed" beach rights where ever you decide to stake your tent, simple as that.

The value of inland property near large parks and public beaches just jumped up. Oooops, that should have been put on the real estate thread. Sorry.

 

[yippie]

It gets more interesting. From the FL Supreme Court:

It is possible for the public to acquire an easement in
the beaches of the State by the finding of a prescriptive r i g h t
t o the beach land. Citv of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff R e a l t y &
Investment Co., 155 Pla. 805, 21 So.2d 783 (1945), and Citv of
Miami Beach v. M i a m i Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14
So.2d 172 (1943). However, in both of the cases cited above
and relied upon by the District Court of Appeal, F i r s t D i s t r i c t ,
i n the case sub iudice, t h i s Court declined to find such prescriptive
r i g h t i n the public because of the absence of an adverse
nature in t h e p u b l i c ' s use of private beach land.


This Court in C i t v of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff Realty
& Investment Co., supra, said:
"It is true t h a t i n the e a r l i e r days preceding
the remarkable development of M i a m i
Beach, when it had a small population, many
persons used the beach for bathing, sunning
and other recreational purposes. The fact
that the upland owners did not prevent or
object to such use is not s u f f i c i e n t to show
t h a t the use was adverse or under a claim of
right. It has not been shown t h a t there has
been an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted
use of the beach by the public,
in derogation of the upland p r o p r i e t o r s '
r i g h t s , for a period of twenty years, or for
any period." 2 1 So.2d 783, p. 786.


T h i s Court in Downins vI B i r d , 100 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1958),
set forth the test f o r r i g h t of access by prescription:
"In e i t h e r prescription or adverse possession,
the r i g h t is acquired only by actual,
continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant
of the lands of another, for a prescribed
period. In addition the use must be adverse
under claim of riqht and must e i t h e r be with
the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious,
and v i s i b l e t h a t knowledge of the use
by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed
to the owner. In both r i g h t s the use
or possession must be inconsistent with the
owner's use and eniovment of his lands and
gust not be a permissive use, for the use
must be such that the owner has a r i g h t t o
a legal action t o stop it, such as an action
for t r e s p a s s o r ejectment.
"Further in e i t h e r prescription or adverse
possession, the use or possession is presumed
to be i n subordination t o the t i t l e of the
t r u e owner, and with his Permission and the
burden is on the claimant to prove t h a t the
use or possession is adverse." (Emphasis
supplied.) (p. 64)


If the use of an alleged easement is not exclusive and
not inconsistent with the r i g h t s of the owner of the land to
its use and enjoyment, kt would be presumed that such use is
permissive rather than adverse. Hence, such use w i l l never
ripen into easement. This principle was recognized i n J. C.
Vereen & Sons v. Hauser, 123 Fla. 641, 167 So. 45 (1936), where
t h i s Court quoted with approval from Jesse French Piano ti Orqan
Co. v. Forbes, 129 A l a . 471, 29 So. 683, 685, 87 Am,St.Rep. 71,
as follows:

"NO easement can be acquired when the use is
by express or implied permission, . . . The
user or enjoyment of the r i g h t claimed, in
order to become an easement by prescription,
must have been adverse to the owner of the
e s t a t e over which the easement is claimed,
under a claim of r i g h t , exclusive, continuous,
and uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and
stance always considered is whether the u s e r
is aqainst the i n t e r e s t of the party sufferins
it, or injurious to him. There must be
an invasion of the partv's r i s h t , for, unless
one loses somethins, the other sains nothinq."
(Emphasis supplied.) (p. 47)

Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.

 

[JB]

Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.

I think it was a copy/paste and the formatting got mucked up in the process.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ, You have, without a doubt, made your point that the judicial system of the great state of Florida believes that there exists some inherent right of the public to use the beach. Just a favor, enough with all the legal quotes. Noone is debating that aspect.

But you have not addressed the requirement on a case by case basis of the public's burden of proof that the public is entitled to this use.

Please, take another look at post #122 and try to address it. I think this is the core issue at this point, not the Tona-Rama stuff.

Pgurney at least answered that erecting a fence is a method for interrupting access. However, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Florida DEP will allow a gulf front owner to erect a fence on the beach, even if it is privately owned. The turtle people would be up in arms. Then if you put up a no-trespassing sign but it's ignored, is that considered interrupted? I don't think so from what I've read.

Then the only real way to defend private property rights on the beach would be to hire live people to chase away trespassers. Is that a fair requirement for ANY private property owner to defend their property?

Here we are today.

I think you asked good questions in post 122. I don't know the answers. It seems like there are more questions than answers.

Addressing the public's burden of proof on a case by case basis, I will refer back to the Court's words,
"If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner."

This statement, IMO, reads that the owner should not be calling the Sheriff's Dept to have people arrested for simple tresspass if they are on the dry sandy beach. I think discussion could end right there.

If you think that Tona-Rama will not be used by the Courts to rule in any lawsuits regarding the public's use of the beach, you have not read the FL Supreme Court's ruling in the case, and other similar cases which I have highlighted in bold, for you.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Is something wrong with your keyboard, or are you trying to make a point? It is incredibly hard to read like that.

Sorry, I should have disclosed that it was copied from pdf files of old records. I tried to readjust the spacing and fonts, but it would not allow me to do so.

 

[JB]

Sorry, I should have disclosed that it was copied from pdf files of old records. I tried to readjust the spacing and fonts, but it would not allow me to do so.

A tip: Copy/paste the info into a word doc. Format it, then copy/paste here.

 

[Smiling JOe]

A tip: Copy/paste the info into a word doc. Format it, then copy/paste here.

Good idea. Thanks.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I think you asked good questions in post 122. I don't know the answers. It seems like there are more questions than answers.

Addressing the public's burden of proof on a case by case basis, I will refer back to the Court's words,
"If the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the sandy area adjacent to mean
high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without i n t e r r u p t i o n
and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should
not be i n t e r f e r e d with by the owner."

This statement, IMO, reads that the owner should not be calling the Sheriff's Dept to have people arrested for simple tresspass if they are on the dry sandy beach. I think discussion could end right there.

If you think that Tona-Rama will not be used by the Courts to rule in any lawsuits regarding the public's use of the beach, you have not read the FL Supreme Court's ruling in the case, and other similar cases which I have highlighted in bold, for you.

You still have not addressed the first word in your bolded sentence...
IF. Yes a BIG "IF", which does tie in to my post #122.

Where's Bill Clinton when you need him? (or was it the meaning of the word "IS"?)

BTW, I NEVER said or implied that the courts would not consider Tona-Rama. I have read enough of the court cases to know that I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.