Customary use wins in Federal Court!

I really thought that after all this time, someone would comment on Matt's post. I guess this sadly confirms that most of the old "stand your sand" folks have departed SoWal and hang out in Facebook land where I first caught wind of all this.

I have to admit that this and other articles regarding the Pinelles Customary Use ruling point to a real and obvious problem:

Something is really screwed up regarding the notion of CU when Pinelles County is compared with Walton County. Some of you might have been right when you said Walton County caved in too early. I wondered the same thing but I didn't lose too much sleep since this expensive litigation was brought to an end in favor of private property rights. More importantly, at least Walton County was shown that they just can't take private rights away without due process regardless of the outcome (as opposed to simply passing a customary use ordinance without any due process).

If anything, from the perspective of CU advocates, one has to question why the county gave in before the trial when they were going down the seemingly exact same path that Pinnelles County did (and in a similar time frame).

The obvious issue now is that the settlement CANNOT BE REVERSED. As known, the Walton County commissioners settled the customary use lawsuit "with prejudice" which means the case cannot be appealed.

NONE of the commissioners were "smart enough" to come to the conclusion on their own to stop the customary use litigation and throw in the towel. Yet, somehow, the acting county attorney apparently convinced them to do so. After seeing the outcome at Pinelles County, I and others have to wonder why.

On the flip side, I'm not sure that CU in Pinnelles is a done deal. Is the U.S. Supreme Court still an option for the beach front owners?

Any factual opinions would be appreciated.

Anything new to add?

I really thought that after all this time, someone would comment on Matt's post. I guess this sadly confirms that most of the old "stand your sand" folks have departed SoWal and hang out in Facebook land where I first caught wind of all this.

I have to admit that this and other articles regarding the Pinelles Customary Use ruling point to a real and obvious problem:

Something is really screwed up regarding the notion of CU when Pinelles County is compared with Walton County. Some of you might have been right when you said Walton County caved in too early. I wondered the same thing but I didn't lose too much sleep since this expensive litigation was brought to an end in favor of private property rights. More importantly, at least Walton County was shown that they just can't take private rights away without due process regardless of the outcome (as opposed to simply passing a customary use ordinance without any due process).

If anything, from the perspective of CU advocates, one has to question why the county gave in before the trial when they were going down the seemingly exact same path that Pinnelles County did (and in a similar time frame).

The obvious issue now is that the settlement CANNOT BE REVERSED. As known, the Walton County commissioners settled the customary use lawsuit "with prejudice" which means the case cannot be appealed.

NONE of the commissioners were "smart enough" to come to the conclusion on their own to stop the customary use litigation and throw in the towel. Yet, somehow, the acting county attorney apparently convinced them to do so. After seeing the outcome at Pinelles County, I and others have to wonder why.

On the flip side, I'm not sure that CU in Pinnelles is a done deal. Is the U.S. Supreme Court still an option for the beach front owners?

Any factual opinions would be appreciated.

Are you one of the Aholes who were posting screenshots of this forum on Facebook and smearing good community members out of context?

Are you one of the Aholes who were posting screenshots of this forum on Facebook and smearing good community members out of context?

I guess I am an Ahole - only because I personally spent many thousands of dollars fighting customary use. But I have absolutely no idea what you're talkin about regarding "posting screenshots of this forum on Facebook and smearing good community members out of context."

Sheesh, I fought customary use like the plague for many reasons. Nothing to hide there as anyone can search on this forum through the many years. In my post above, I simply point out the parallels between Pinellis County and Walton County. But instead of questioning why the county threw in the towel before trial (as opposed to Pinellis County), you attack me because I'm the only thing you can see for now. You appear to be so blinded by "hate" that you can't see that I'm throwing you CU folks a bone. Why would I smear anybody at the same time?

It seems to me that you and your brethren should really be questioning why the BCC and the acting county attorney settled the case with prejudice before going to trial, especially in light of the Pinellis County CU outcome (a little hindsight, of course). I just assumed the acting county attorney knew something we did didn't. But whatever it was, with the information presented in the news article, it really does make one wonder why the acting county attorney and Walton County BCC caved in.

BTW, can you or others share the "smears" you mention here? Which Facebook page did they take place in? Inquiring minds want to know.

I guess I am an Ahole - only because I personally spent many thousands of dollars fighting customary use. But I have absolutely no idea what you're talkin about regarding "posting screenshots of this forum on Facebook and smearing good community members out of context."

Sheesh, I fought customary use like the plague for many reasons. Nothing to hide there as anyone can search on this forum through the many years. In my post above, I simply point out the parallels between Pinellis County and Walton County. But instead of questioning why the county threw in the towel before trial (as opposed to Pinellis County), you attack me because I'm the only thing you can see for now. You appear to be so blinded by "hate" that you can't see that I'm throwing you CU folks a bone. Why would I smear anybody at the same time?

It seems to me that you and your brethren should really be questioning why the BCC and the acting county attorney settled the case with prejudice before going to trial, especially in light of the Pinellis County CU outcome (a little hindsight, of course). I just assumed the acting county attorney knew something we did didn't. But whatever it was, with the information presented in the news article, it really does make one wonder why the acting county attorney and Walton County BCC caved in.

BTW, can you or others share the "smears" you mention here? Which Facebook page did they take place in? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks for the bone. You're an awesome neighbor.

Thanks for the bone. You're an awesome neighbor.

You're too kind.

This seems petty. If I purchased a property and randomly had strangers walking around in my backyard I’d have an issue with that; totally understandable.

The rebuttal of course is entitlement and something around “you don’t own the beach/water”. To which the response is fairly straightforward. Well, thats debatable, but YOU certainly don’t! Next.

If I purchased a property and randomly had strangers walking around in my backyard I’d have an issue with that; totally understandable.

This comparison has been made many times totally ridiculous.

This seems petty. If I purchased a property and randomly had strangers walking around in my backyard I’d have an issue with that; totally understandable.

The rebuttal of course is entitlement and something around “you don’t own the beach/water”. To which the response is fairly straightforward. Well, thats debatable, but YOU certainly don’t! Next.

Tell me you've never been anywhere else in Florida without telling me you've never been anywhere else in Florida.

Nice funny joke. Some real substance.

Just saying, the argument of “they can’t take something that’s not theirs” being made by people who want to take something that’s not theirs….little hollow, if not ironic. At least one side has the evidence of a deed. But joke and snide away.

Nice funny joke. Some real substance.

Just saying, the argument of “they can’t take something that’s not theirs” being made by people who want to take something that’s not theirs….little hollow, if not ironic. At least one side has the evidence of a deed. But joke and snide away.

Are you saying that the concept of customary use is not recognized by law anywhere in the United States, anywhere in Florida, or anywhere in Walton County? I just need some clarification. Since it was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court for Florida in 1975, and is upheld in various states, it seems like it has never been upheld in Walton County because it was never allowed to be adjudicated in a court of law. It was apparently prevented from being a judicated by an "acting county attorney" in a settlement deal that was surrounded in secrecy. It seems like it has never been proven or disproven in a court of law.

Are you saying that the concept of customary use is not recognized by law anywhere in the United States, anywhere in Florida, or anywhere in Walton County? I just need some clarification. Since it was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court for Florida in 1975, and is upheld in various states, it seems like it has never been upheld in Walton County because it was never allowed to be adjudicated in a court of law. It was apparently prevented from being a judicated by an "acting county attorney" in a settlement deal that was surrounded in secrecy. It seems like it has never been proven or disproven in a court of law.

I would think it depends on a lot of the details. What was sold and when is a big one, and one that can vary tremendously even in the same areas.

There’s tons of private beaches. Go south of Miami and see how much beach access you have. What I’ve seen is in less developed places, it’s murkier than in Clearwater.

Think the easiest solution is for the county to use its tourist tax funds to keep buying parcels for public access. At least if it’s settled that the parcel owner gets the beach too, this approach doesn’t leave anything to interpretation.

I find it very interesting the people who come on and champion private property rights, real estate law and the US constitution; all while forgetting about the decades of access people enjoyed without challenge creating what would normally be viewed as a prescriptive easement.

The other thing is that there also isn’t some shortage of beach for people to use. I mean PCB has tons of public beach access. Same if you go west. But instead everyone wants to fight over some of the most expensive sand in the country, cuz that’s the “it” place to be. It’s an easily solvable problem if your problem is simply being able to go to the beach.

An interesting fact is that Redington Beach only had to spend about $200,000 on their CU case, and part of that was paid by insurance.

Not here, but another Florida county:

Judge rules against Pinellas County waterfront homeowners in public beach access fight

Judge says property owners must share ‘dry sand areas’

www.cltampa.com

A very small beach town with its own government. While a growing south walton remains with no government or leadership beyond general county oversight. And it shows.

"The Town of Redington Beach, Florida, is located on a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico. We are bordered by North Redington Beach to the north, Madeira Beach to the south, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Redington Beach is primarily a waterfront residential community. Redington Beach is a state chartered municipality, located in Pinellas County, west of Tampa, Tampa Bay and St. Petersburg.

Our town is approximately 1 square mile in size. We boast 4 town parks, 5 public beach accesses, a causeway with benches for relaxing and fishing, and a community recreation area with basketball courts and a large children’s playground."

A very small beach town with its own government. While a growing south walton remains with no government or leadership beyond general county oversight. And it shows.

"The Town of Redington Beach, Florida, is located on a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico. We are bordered by North Redington Beach to the north, Madeira Beach to the south, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Redington Beach is primarily a waterfront residential community. Redington Beach is a state chartered municipality, located in Pinellas County, west of Tampa, Tampa Bay and St. Petersburg.

Our town is approximately 1 square mile in size. We boast 4 town parks, 5 public beach accesses, a causeway with benches for relaxing and fishing, and a community recreation area with basketball courts and a large children’s playground."

I understand your point, but they are also 1 square mile. South Walton is approximately 200 times their size. This might explain their lower legal costs as well.

Walton County voted for Huckabee.

Walton County voted for Huckabee.

Gaetz being the political face of the Panhandle on a national basis is frightening. This area has all the hallmarks of a moderate/libertarian utopia and yet I can’t stop running into extremists.

Yes, the town's beach is only one mile long compared with Walton County's 26 miles of beachfront. The lower legal cost is also because the town did not follow the court process set up in HB 631 for affirming customary use. They just passed a CU ordinance and then when they were sued, they argued customary use as a defense.

Yes, the town's beach is only one mile long compared with Walton County's 26 miles of beachfront. The lower legal cost is also because the town did not follow the court process set up in HB 631 for affirming customary use. They just passed a CU ordinance and then when they were sued, they argued customary use as a defense.

I'm not sure I see the real difference between Walton County and Redington Beach regarding customary use other than these two facts:
1. Walton County filed suit against all beach front private property owners arguing for CU;
2. Private property owners filed suit against Redington Beach against the CU ordinance.

Here is the timeline for both:

Walton County
Passed CU ordinance on March 28, 2017
Senate/House Bill 163.035 then went into effect on July 1, 2018
County files CU lawsuit on December 11, 2018
County settled customary use lawsuit in June 2023 (private property owners prevailed)

Redington Beach
Passed CU ordinance on June 6, 2018
Senate/House Bill 163.035 went into effect on July 1, 2018
Property owners filed complaint against Redington Beach in June 2019
CU prevails in court on August 12, 2024 (private property owners lost)

Regarding "They just passed a CU ordinance and then when they were sued, they argued customary use as a defense", it doesn't explain why the Walton County Commissioners were advised to abort the lawsuit as I don't see any real difference between Walton County and Redington Beach.

That's all I'm trying to understand.

There are similarities and differences with Walton County but one big difference was that Walton County interpreted HB 631 as negating their customary use ordinance. Redington Beach did not, and took the position that their CU ordinance was valid regardless of HB 631. The town did not file a court complaint to affirm customary use as Walton County did. The town was sued over the ordinance, and that was how their case went to court. On Walton County's reason or reasons for settling, there is not much information available to the public on why that happened, as most of the discussion took place in closed executive session, but possibly someone has more info. I'm sure many of us would like to know. More details will become public when the case is closed, including all appeals, and there are appeals pending at the First District Court of Appeal.

There are similarities and differences with Walton County but one big difference was that Walton County interpreted HB 631 as negating their customary use ordinance. Redington Beach did not, and took the position that their CU ordinance was valid regardless of HB 631. The town did not file a court complaint to affirm customary use as Walton County did. The town was sued over the ordinance, and that was how their case went to court. On Walton County's reason or reasons for settling, there is not much information available to the public on why that happened, as most of the discussion took place in closed executive session, but possibly someone has more info. I'm sure many of us would like to know. More details will become public when the case is closed, including all appeals, and there are appeals pending at the First District Court of Appeal.

"On Walton County's reason or reasons for settling, there is not much information available to the public on why that happened, as most of the discussion took place in closed executive session, but possibly someone has more info. I'm sure many of us would like to know." Miznotebook, you have an invaluable source of information on this site, for many many years, and you absolutely nailed it with this statement.

There are similarities and differences with Walton County but one big difference was that Walton County interpreted HB 631 as negating their customary use ordinance. Redington Beach did not, and took the position that their CU ordinance was valid regardless of HB 631. The town did not file a court complaint to affirm customary use as Walton County did. The town was sued over the ordinance, and that was how their case went to court. On Walton County's reason or reasons for settling, there is not much information available to the public on why that happened, as most of the discussion took place in closed executive session, but possibly someone has more info. I'm sure many of us would like to know. More details will become public when the case is closed, including all appeals, and there are appeals pending at the First District Court of Appeal.

Thanks for your input. I'm almost certain that just because Redington Beach supposedly didn't withdraw their CU ordinance (educated guess), doesn't mean that CU was valid in Redington Beach when HB 631 went into effect on July 1, 2018. Just like Walton County, I would have assumed the beach property would remain private again after July 1st. And like Walton County, it would have been up to Redington Beach to file suit against the private property owners as mandated in HB 631 to establish CU in court, not via an ordinance. My guess would be that the town didn't back off from CU even though HB 631 should have forced them to. The private property owners then filed suit after having enough. Again, this is an educated guess based on what HB 631 mandates.

BTW, there are only a handful of plaintiffs who filed suit against Redington Beach:
SHAWN BUENDING, ROBERT
DOHMEN, THOMAS K. BROWN,
HARRY S. FIELDS, WENDY
FIELDS, SHAWN MOORE and
DAGMAR MOORE,
PAMELA GREACEN and
ARTHUR L. BUSER, JR.

Contrast this with the hundreds and hundreds of defendants of the Walton County customary use court case. I do wonder if this made any difference. Were the county attorneys inundated by all the many defendants' attorneys and associated legal horsepower?

Regarding the other private beach property owners in Redington Beach that were not involved in the litigation, I don't understand how they could lose their private property rights without litigation.

I just don't see any consistency between Walton County and Redington Beach regarding CU.

So should Walton County pass an ordinance stating all beach is public? Or that all beach allowed to be used by the public?