But, wait! There's more! There were a number of other facts in that case as well. To get the complete story, we can't just read articles that are skewed toward one side or the other. The case is in the public records for your reading entertainment.
Public vs Private Beach [threads merged]
- Thread starter SoWal Staff
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
A little research revealed that back in 2006 several beach front owners in the Old Blue Mountain Beach subdivision filed suit against the developer, Blue Gulf Corporation, a longtime dissolved corporation. The suit was an effort to acquire quiet title to the beach areas south of their original property boundary all the way to the mean high tide water line.
They were successful. The areas they acquired were previously marked "beach" just as in the previously mentioned Beach Highlands subdivision case. These "beach" areas were just like the other public areas in the subdivision including, trails to Redfish, beach walkovers and roads; all undeniably intended to be accessible to the neighborhood.
Now we have close to half of the Old Blue Mountain Beaches claimed by the beach front owners.
A Walton County Records search revealed several other cases extending from 2006-2012 where the defendant was Blue Gulf Corporation; most likely additional quiet title beach front acquisitions.
It appears that nobody contested these quiet titles. Interested parties could have been other homeowners in the neighborhood, neighborhood HOA, Walton County, TDC, State of Florida.
Here is a link to public notice that Old Blue Mountain Beach Front owners published in order to acquire quiet title.
The Defuniak Springs Herald - Google News Archive Search
They were successful. The areas they acquired were previously marked "beach" just as in the previously mentioned Beach Highlands subdivision case. These "beach" areas were just like the other public areas in the subdivision including, trails to Redfish, beach walkovers and roads; all undeniably intended to be accessible to the neighborhood.
Now we have close to half of the Old Blue Mountain Beaches claimed by the beach front owners.
A Walton County Records search revealed several other cases extending from 2006-2012 where the defendant was Blue Gulf Corporation; most likely additional quiet title beach front acquisitions.
It appears that nobody contested these quiet titles. Interested parties could have been other homeowners in the neighborhood, neighborhood HOA, Walton County, TDC, State of Florida.
Here is a link to public notice that Old Blue Mountain Beach Front owners published in order to acquire quiet title.
The Defuniak Springs Herald - Google News Archive Search
Last edited:
Hopefully you noticed who the Attorney representing the plaintiffs was. None other than Mark D Davis current county attorney.
He is on the agenda Tuesday to discuss "Quiet Titles" options available to the BCC.
He is on the agenda Tuesday to discuss "Quiet Titles" options available to the BCC.
What specifically was there to contest?
Good catch Bob.
Good Ole' Mark Davis smack in the middle of it.
I thought it might be G R Miller...
First, I would like to clarify that I am no expert on real estate law. Here is my take:
Recent quiet title actions by beach front property owners in both Beach Highlands and Old Blue Mountain were directed at the subdivision's developers, in both instances corporations that have long since been dissolved. Furthermore the quiet title actions only addressed the corporations potential interest in the property, leaving out other interested parties, including property owners in the aforementioned subdivisions and their respective HOA, if any exists.
In my opinion these quiet title actions are deficient or flawed and could be challenged since the other interested parties, homeowners in the Old Blue Mountain Beach and Beach Highlands subdivisions, were not made a party to the quiet title action. Their interest or other interested parties interest in the beach front has not been "quieted"
Lexis check on this issue reveals the following pertinent information:
"The judgment in the quiet title action is binding and conclusive on all persons known and unknown who are parties to the action and who have any claim to the property, whether present or future, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, several or undivided [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.030(a)]. A person is one of the “parties to the action” on becoming a party in any of the ways prescribed by statute (including the quiet title statutes).
If a person is duly made a party but subsequently is dismissed, the effect of the judgment on that person is the same as if the person had never been made a party [see Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 201, 212, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603 (named defendant that was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff thereby became nonparty and was not bound by judgment)]. For discussion, see § 482.19[3].
[3] Persons Who Could Have Been Made Parties
The judgment does not affect a claim as to the property or a part of the property by any person not a party to the action—nor a successor in interest to a party, respecting the claim [Code Civ. Proc. § 1908(a)(2); see § 482.19[2]]—if either of the following conditions is satisfied [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.045]:
•The claim was of record at the time the lis pendens was “filed” (that is, recorded) or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded.
•The claim was actually known to the plaintiff or would have been reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property at the time the lis pendens was filed, or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was entered. This exception cannot be construed to impair the rights of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value dealing with the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s successors in interest.
In other words, when one of those conditions is satisfied, the claimant is not bound by the judgment—nor is a successor in interest to the claimant bound by the judgment—unless the claimant was a party to the action [see Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 201, 215–217, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603].
[4] Persons With Nonascertainable Claims
Except as provided in Code Civ. Proc. § 764.045 [see § 482.19[2], [3]], the judgment in the action is binding and conclusive on all persons who were not parties to the action and who have any claim to the property which was not of record at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded [Code Civ. Proc. § 764.030(b)].
JK, I took yet another look at your post here and article. One could see that there could possibly be a claim by by the county based on the words used in the Beach Highlands dedication. However as mentioned in the article, "...That affidavit, along with several deeds referencing the mean high water, formed the basis for the judge’s determination that the owners of the lots along the beach owned to the mean high water."
So the judge made a determination. I guess it could be challenged in a higher court (I have no idea how that works). Now, back to Old Blue Mountain Beach...you quoted a lot legal stuff in your last post.
Can you find anything in the Old BMB dedication that could possibly be construed as the public having rights to the sandy area?
So the judge made a determination. I guess it could be challenged in a higher court (I have no idea how that works). Now, back to Old Blue Mountain Beach...you quoted a lot legal stuff in your last post.
Can you find anything in the Old BMB dedication that could possibly be construed as the public having rights to the sandy area?
That meeting on going on NOW 5:22PM 4/12/16
Mark Davis' comment regarding quiet title was pretty much as I expected. There's a possible claim at Beach Highlands. Old Blue Mountain Beach is different as the defunct corporation which owned the beach had in their document that those homes bordering the beach would receive title of the beach should the corporation no longer exist....pretty clear.
As mentioned by others, Mark Davis represented 4 of the beach front owners at Old BMB in this matter. It was pretty clear cut from what I've heard and read.
So are there any other quiet title debates going on out there?
It still feels like a lynch mob if you're a private beach front property owner with so many claiming ALL the beach should be public.
Of course 99% of them do not own private beach front property. No wonder the BCC is slanted and ready to pounce on and trample private property rights.
As mentioned by others, Mark Davis represented 4 of the beach front owners at Old BMB in this matter. It was pretty clear cut from what I've heard and read.
So are there any other quiet title debates going on out there?
It still feels like a lynch mob if you're a private beach front property owner with so many claiming ALL the beach should be public.
Of course 99% of them do not own private beach front property. No wonder the BCC is slanted and ready to pounce on and trample private property rights.
Last edited: