BMBV, I am beginning to find some interesting information based on your book and page mentioned today. It is fairly lengthy, and would mostly only confuse people as to the ownership. I apologize and acknowledge that today, for the first time, you have pointed out new information regarding deeded ownership of the beach to the east of Hwy 83. I am not an attorney and do not know without a doubt, who the correct owners are. I'll see if I can keep the new information very short for understanding by all.
-- original plat dated 1948 didn't designate any ownership of the beach -- not on the plat, not on the deed, and today, in the County's own computer maps for parcels, it shows it that way.
-- around 1955, there was a deed recorded which you shared with us today. It makes no mention to previous deeds of record showing the developer of the s/d ever bought the sandy beach. That deed states that the developer is giving the sandy beach between the Gulf front lots and the Gulf to the lot owners in the sub-division, with a caveat. If the developer, or the successors to the developer, dissolve their business, the sandy property between the gulf front lots and the Gulf would revert to the individual Gulf front owners in that S/D. The original developer dissolved and created a successor. The successor to the company dissolved by Court Order in 1973 (going from memory here so bear with me if I'm off by a year or two.) Technically speaking the beach ownership, according to the deed recorded in 1955, should have gone to the Gulf front owners at that time. A deed doesn't have to be recorded for transference to take place.
-- according to that 1955 deed, it states that if the Gulf front owners abandon the beach, it would revert back to the collective ownership by the lot owners in the s/d.
-- Sept 20, 2007, a deed was recorded in WalCo, deeding the beach to the individual Gulf front lot owners. (this was recorded 34 years after the transference was to take place according to the deed.)
-- In my non-legal opinion, since this beach property has been used by the public for a long period of time, at least 34 years, it might be said that the Gulf front owners abandoned the low elevation beach property, and it should revert back to the collective group of property owners in the entire s/d.
-- Add to that, the idea that one of the things used by the courts to determine rights of usage is the that the public has used it for over twenty years, and we are back to the question of ownership and rights to use.
-- I am much more enlightened by my research today, but this particular stretch of beach has just opened a new can of worms as to legal ownership rights, and still, there is the issue of Customary Use, as it seems that these owners have not really lost any value in all of the changes and potential changes in legal ownership, rather than it being an issue of Prescriptive Easements.
-- In summary, even outside of the public's right to use the beach for sunbathing, the issue of who had legal deed to what is going to be filled with many questions.
-- I just thought of a way you could get people to become exhibitionists on "your' beach", or at either make them move on. You could get a telephoto lense for your camera, and make people very aware that you are taking photos of them as they are wearing swimsuits, trying to relax.
