• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

redfisher

Beach Fanatic
Sep 11, 2005
374
37
I think its kind of foolish, but the law is the law...I don't understand the hostility towards the sheriff...And I understand the hostility against the owner but its their land...In some cases, the beach beyond the high water mark is NOT for sharing...Ive been asked to move on when fishing from in front of there and so moved my feet in the water and thumbed my nose at the guard...However, if a bunch of people showed up at your community pool and took up shop, are you willing to waive your right to ask them to leave so you can set up shop on that other fellas beach....

Finally, what are the top 10 arrest categories for the sheriff's dept in Walton Co?...Is it posted somewhere?...I'd be curious what they use all those new squad cars for....Red
 

GoodWitch58

Beach Fanatic
Oct 10, 2005
4,816
1,921
Redfisher, do you live here? If not, maybe that's why you don't understand the feelings some of us have toward the Sheriff's department? If so, then perhaps you have never needed help from the Sheriff's staff, never called asking for assistance, or never noticed how they behave.....
 

JB

Beach Fanatic
Nov 17, 2004
1,446
40
Tuscaloosa
... and just what is the law in this case? I think there are opposing views on the laws, especially since the public has used the beach without anyone defending it as their own, up until this year. The law may not read as clearly as a deed.


This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

I'm all about civil disobedience. Go for it.

But when you consider the Retreat is one of the highest of the high-end developments, I'm guessing the law might respond a little quicker than they would if the same thing had happened in front of a small cinder block house on Blue Mountain Road. Fair? Nope. Reality? You betcha.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
JB, did you actually read the FL Supreme Case decision of Tona-Rama, which is within the link above? I'm no lawyer, but this particular Court ruling sounds as if this has already been hashed out and that the public has had a long standing use for more than twenty years, so I think the Sheriff and "private beach owners" need to have their attorneys do a little research prior to calling the cops. It reads as though each case will be case by case, but that all future decisions will have a clear direction on the ruling, depending on the extended use of the beach by the public. To my knowledge, last year was the first time we saw a sign go up on the beach regarding it's ownership. Perhaps if these "owners" begin to defend their property now, the courts will rule in their favor five years down the road, but as it stands right now, I don't think they would have a case, since the public has used most of the beach up until this year.


From the State Attorney General's Office:

"
The Tona-Rama (FL Supreme Court) case recognizes the common law principle of "customary use" by the public of Florida's dry sand beaches. The court held that if the public's recreational use of a privately owned sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner is allowed to make any use of his property that is consistent with such public use and is not calculated to interfere with the exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sandy area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area, which is held by the state in trust for the people.[12]

...

While the court rejected a finding of a public easement in the property, it acknowledged the historical right of the public to use Florida's beaches:

"We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of, Florida's oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court."[14]

The court recognized the "customary rights doctrine" or "customary right of use doctrine" as it is employed to afford the public full use of beach property in Florida:

"If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner may make any use of his property which is consistent with such public use and not calculated to interfere with exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area."

This right of customary use of the dry sand area of the beaches by the public does not create any interest in the land itself. Although this right of use cannot be revoked by the land owner, it is subject to appropriate governmental regulation and may be abandoned by the public.[15]

The court concluded:

"The general public may continue to use the dry sand area for their usual recreational activities, not because the public has any interest in the land itself, but because of a right gained through custom to use this particular area of the beach as they have without dispute and without interruption for many years."
[16]

In any particular case, however, whether this "customary right of use" exists in a particular piece of property is a mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved judicially. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal recently recognized in the case of Reynolds v. County of Volusia,[17] "[t]hat doctrine requires the courts to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use the beach has been subjected to and, in addition, to balance whether the proposed use of the land by the fee owners will interfere with such use enjoyed by the public in the past."[18]

The right of a municipality to regulate and control dry sand beach property within its municipal boundaries is not dependent on the finding of the Florida Supreme Court in City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc. However, that case establishes the "customary use" doctrine in Florida, which may be relied on and would provide direction in cases involving private property rights and trespass.
 
Last edited:

Bobby J

Beach Fanatic
Apr 18, 2005
4,043
600
Blue Mountain beach
www.lifeonshore.com
This is such BULL S*&%! WE are working on this issue. Folks get involved. Don't just get pissed. They will win if we do not get people calling the county and complaining. It moves slow but we should win in the long run but need as many people as possible getting involved.
 

Uncle Timmy

Beach Fanatic
Nov 15, 2004
1,019
22
Blue Mountain Beach
This incident makes me want to bring about 400 of my closest friends and set up on the beach in front of the property where this took place.

Count me in.

A similar situation occured a few days ago at the Retreat when homeowners forced a family to move 5', (yes 5 feet!) because they had 'encroached' on the Retreat beach.

EVERYBODY at the party I was at on Sunday was talking about this because several of them witnessed the event.

Everbody was pissed and ready to protest.

It is ridiculous that some Retreat homeowners have nothing better to do in their multi-million dollar beachfront homes but leer down on beachgoers.

Is this why you bought into this area? Pleeeeeeeeeeease, get a life!

A well managed protest in front of the offending resident would probably make a very strong point, since apparently -these folks are strung way too tight and would be horrified at the uncalculated consequences of their actions.
 

GoodWitch58

Beach Fanatic
Oct 10, 2005
4,816
1,921
Bobby, are we getting organized as we did for the traffic signals? We need an organized effort...let me know exactly what needs to be done.
 

Hop

Beach Fanatic
Oct 1, 2006
2,230
182
51
Dune Allen
www.myspace.com
Count me in.

A similar situation occured a few days ago at the Retreat when homeowners forced a family to move 5', (yes 5 feet!) because they had 'encroached' on the Retreat beach.

EVERYBODY at the party I was at on Sunday was talking about this because several of them witnessed the event.

Everbody was pissed and ready to protest.

It is ridiculous that some Retreat homeowners have nothing better to do in their multi-million dollar beachfront homes but leer down on beachgoers.

Is this why you bought into this area? Pleeeeeeeeeeease, get a life!

A well managed protest in front of the offending resident would probably make a very strong point, since apparently -these folks are strung way too tight and would be horrified at the uncalculated consequences of their actions.

sounds like funn!:evil:
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter