Jimmy T, thank you for a very fair analysis of the article and your opinion. I do hope things can be worked out - this I believe, we can all agree on.
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.
J T, you have hit the mark with your review.
I agree about the US vs. Them and that is not the way to go. Unfortunately, the misinformation being speed only fuels that.
I liked your comments about the "bad apples" and I'd add to that, it's not a few but more like a small orchard (grown over the past several years).
No surprise, I agree with the Lack of Enforcement piece as well. I've spouted off on that in numerous posts on both Sheriff Mike and the TDC code enforcement.
Instead a blaming each other, the source of the problem, which you've identified, should be addressed.
1). Enforcement
2). Quality of Visitor to our area
Had those two things not drastically changed, we would not have 14 pages of posts on this and everyone would be happy in SoWal...
Instead we sit poised to repeat the sins of the past and get lawyers involved.
Regarding quiet title in old blue mountain beach subdivision: I am simply not confident that all parties to the quiet title lawsuit were properly included. At a very minimum the other homeowners should have been included. Just my opinion. As I look into it further, perhaps I will come to a different conclusion.
From Memoirs of a Title Examiner:
"A “Quiet Title Action” is just that. It is an action, brought by a plaintiff, or plaintiffs, for the purpose of determining, with certainty, title to a specific parcel of land. The final judgment allows the prevailing party to move forward, free from the interest of the defendant(s). A proper quiet title action will present all necessary parties before the court. If a necessary party is left out of the lawsuit, such party will not be bound by its final adjudication. The plaintiff’s attorney will diligently determine all parties with a legal interest in order to properly join them in the suit."
From Memoirs of a Title Examiner:
"A “Quiet Title Action” is just that. It is an action, brought by a plaintiff, or plaintiffs, for the purpose of determining, with certainty, title to a specific parcel of land. The final judgment allows the prevailing party to move forward, free from the interest of the defendant(s). A proper quiet title action will present all necessary parties before the court. If a necessary party is left out of the lawsuit, such party will not be bound by its final adjudication. The plaintiff’s attorney will diligently determine all parties with a legal interest in order to properly join them in the suit."
I'm getting teary-eyed with all the good will that is emanating from this thread, but just pronouncing the word enforcement doesn't make it magically happen. The truth is neither the TDC nor the WCSO feel this is their job, and without a clear, unambiguous definition of the law pertaining to customary use, they would be hard pressed to adjudicate every situation that arises. The BCC has punted it until after the elections, so it is up to each and every one of us to ask every BCC member and candidate one simple question: do you or don't you support the people's right to customary use of the beaches, and then have them define it.
Last edited:
Why?
Degummit! If things get a little rough you call me hostile ("calling a lie a lie"). If the exchange appears to be going civilly, you start to cry! Is there a middle of road where we need to be to keep you happy?
First, regarding no trespassing enforcement, that's not a TDC job. Maybe John G is talking about other "illegal" activities that need enforcement. But since you are mentioning customary use, I assume you're discussing trespassing as far as "adjudicating every situation that arises".
Second, WCSO must enforce valid no trespassing claims as part of their duty, whether you live in Defuniak Springs or in South Walton. Private property rights don't just disappear just because the beach happens to be involved.
You need to keep in mind, the claim of customary use is just that, a claim, for now. And in the end (whenever that will be), customary use certainly will not be applied across the entire 20+ miles of beach.
Previously I asked everyone, how is one to protect their property from trespassers if the southern boundary is in dispute because of the MHWL? Nobody really addressed it - no surprise. Without the ability to REASONABLY use the MHWL as the southern boundary, then a gulf front lot whose southern boundary is the MHWL has NO BOUNDARY. Anybody can go anywhere on the property. Again, the only LEGAL southern boundary defined on our deed is the MHWL.
Perhaps our title should have included this highly legal and specific language:
"And if the WCSO does not enforce the MHWL boundary, God be with you because there is no other legal fallback southern boundary for your private property."
Last edited:
BMBvagrant, I think you are being a little melodramatic. No one is disputing enforcing the trespass laws on anyone's lawn, home, deck, pool or walkovers. Only the white sand portion of the beach is in dispute and some portion of that area is south of the MHWL.
Melodramatic, and imprecise. Customary use is a right that has been a part of the public's rights since well before any of this property was platted. When you bought your bundle of rights, it did not dissolve the public's rights. You seem a tad arrogant to think your particular piece was never subject to customary use. Have you sat on your porch and watched for two hundred years?
Thank goodness regarding the deck, pool, etc. Your observation is very reasonable.
My post may be melodramatic, perhaps - but only to the degree to make a legal point which nobody can defend without being "reasonable".
If one can't (or refuses to) reasonably acknowledge another's southern boundary, the WCSO would have no legal basis to enforce no trespassing on any part of the property based on the legal metes and bounds described on the title. Things are in legal black and white for a reason. And for the WCSO to take a position that the property line stops at the dunes is very bad situation (as you ultimately suggest) when there's no legal basis for that determination as recorded on the deed and current law.
SURVEYS:
An annual survey would mean nothing as many here are loudly demanding without understanding the true meaning of MHWL ("a living, breathing boundary" - (c)2016 BMBV). Here's why:
Let's say a tropical storm removed 3 feet of sand elevation the day after a survey. The MHWL would IMMEDIATELY shift away from the gulf to the north. But if you used the survey from the day before, then much of the beach would be underwater that used to be north of the MHWL when the survey was made.
Technically, that becomes the state of Florida's waters. And the difference is no longer the upland owner's property. The survey would be outdated in just one day.
One day, a person could be trespassing based on the "current" survey. The next day (sitting on the exact same spot), the person would be on state property.
Of course the same holds true in reverse.
Just remember, I didn't create the concept of MHWL. And I'm just trying to be reasonable in it's interpretation.
Of course if one keeps throwing in customary use and pureeing it with the MHWL (2 unrelated concepts, LVT), then no reasonable discussion can be had relative to the enforcement of private property rights as the laws are written now, not tomorrow's possible outcome (i.e. customary use).
So Danny, let's just assume for a minute that we know where the MHWL is located at any point in time. Do you think gulf front private property owners would then have the right to exclude the public from their beach as the laws are written today using this MHWL?
Last edited:
