Montgomery St plat -- for BlueMtnBeachWalker

[Smiling JOe]

BlueMtnBeachWalker, in another thread on Redfish Village, you said that the Montgomery St owners were in disagreement of who owned the beach in front of those houses. Attached to this post is the plat of that subdivision. You will notice that the beach is designated in that plat as "beach reserved for public." I do not think we have to wait for a court of law to determine that the home onwers on Montgomery St do not own the beach in that area.

Furthermore, I am attaching a statement from the original purchaser of the Seahighland S/D, found in the Walton County Official Records. Not only do the home owners not own the beach, but they also do not own a 2ft wide strip between each and every property in the Seahighland sub-division. Those areas between the properties in Seahighland S/D is as stated in the attached, "for the benefit of the owners of lots in the subdivision for access to the beach; and that said areas have been used as walkways to the beach from at least 1956 to the present time. Dated Aug 13, 1987."

I am not stated that the area between the lots is public. The plat does not state that. However, I question the legitimacy of the "no tresspassing" signs posted between a few of those five houses.

How is that information for you, BMBW? Clear enough that not all Beach-Front property owners in Walton County own to the mean high water mark?

 

[Miss Kitty]

 

[whiteyfunn]

SJ, is this the Montgomery St. across the street from Grove by the Sea?

 

[Franny]

SJ, is this the Montgomery St. across the street from Grove by the Sea?

yes, whitey.

 

[BMBWalker]

BlueMtnBeachWalker, in another thread on Redfish Village, you said that the Montgomery St owners were in disagreement of who owned the beach in front of those houses. Attached to this post is the plat of that subdivision. You will notice that the beach is designated in that plat as "beach reserved for public." I do not think we have to wait for a court of law to determine that the home onwers on Montgomery St do not own the beach in that area.

Furthermore, I am attaching a statement from the original purchaser of the Seahighland S/D, found in the Walton County Official Records. Not only do the home owners not own the beach, but they also do not own a 2ft wide strip between each and every property in the Seahighland sub-division. Those areas between the properties in Seahighland S/D is as stated in the attached, "for the benefit of the owners of lots in the subdivision for access to the beach; and that said areas have been used as walkways to the beach from at least 1956 to the present time. Dated Aug 13, 1987."

I am not stated that the area between the lots is public. The plat does not state that. However, I question the legitimacy of the "no tresspassing" signs posted between a few of those five houses.

How is that information for you, BMBW? Clear enough that not all Beach-Front property owners in Walton County own to the mean high water mark?

SJ...thank you for the info and the correction. I have been hearing for many years about the owners rights up to the high mean water mark and I sincerely appreciate your correction. Much is said here about rights and perceived rights and it's good to get some specifics and get away from generalities. I believe you mentioned Grande Beach(?) having a similar problem; what is that about?

BTW, since you have a good deal of knowledge and respond so quickly to these posts, have you ever considered changing your post name from Smiling Joe to Smoking Joe?

 

[Miss Kitty]

:scratch: ...hmmmm, well SJ is HOT!

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ...thank you for the info and the correction. I have been hearing for many years about the owners rights up to the high mean water mark and I sincerely appreciate your correction. Much is said here about rights and perceived rights and it's good to get some specifics and get away from generalities. I believe you mentioned Grande Beach(?) having a similar problem; what is that about?

BTW, since you have a good deal of knowledge and respond so quickly to these posts, have you ever considered changing your post name from Smiling Joe to Smoking Joe?

The ladies have already asked me the same question in the lounge.

Regarding Grand Beach, I am not looking at the plat, and I forget. According to the County plats, there is public beach in the area around Grand Beach, but I forget where exactly without looking at the plats. There are plenty of other examples in the County Plats. I have access to an old plat book, for these older sub-divisions, but you can also gain access to them online via the Clerk of Courts website if you know what you are doing. They don't make that part too easy. The copies which I attached were from the Clerk of Courts website.

 

[Smiling JOe]

...

Furthermore, I am attaching a statement from the original purchaser of the Seahighland S/D, found in the Walton County Official Records. Not only do the home owners not own the beach, but they also do not own a 2ft wide strip between each and every property in the Seahighland sub-division. Those areas between the properties in Seahighland S/D is as stated in the attached, "for the benefit of the owners of lots in the subdivision for access to the beach; and that said areas have been used as walkways to the beach from at least 1956 to the present time. Dated Aug 13, 1987."
...

Actually, upon further inspection, that is not a 2 ft wide strip between the homes that provides beach access for the homeonwers in this sub-division. It is a 20 ft wide strip between each home. :shock: