Customary use wins in Federal Court!

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

That might be a good idea. People that want to challenge that would have to sue the county and prove that CU has NOT been the established doctrine for hundred of years. It all seems to fall back on an "acting county attorney" who is trying to shirk his duties to the people of South Walton.

The Redington Beach BFOs filed an appeal of the decision on Sept. 10 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Seems like a perfect use for eminent domain.

The Redington Beach BFOs filed an appeal of the decision on Sept. 10 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Correct.

From this article:

"James S. Moody Jr., the original judge assigned to the case, sided with the plaintiffs in a summary judgment. Without a full trial, he deemed the ordinance invalid on Feb. 19, 2020. His decision threatened access to most of Redington’s dry sand areas.

The Town appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Aug. 20, 2021. The Court of Appeals tossed aside Moody’s summary judgment. Judges ordered a trial for the Buending case. This decision allowed the ordinance to stay in effect.

Moody removed himself from the case in November 2022, and Covington assumed oversight. Robert Eschenfelder, the Town’s attorney, represented Redington Beach throughout the appeals."


So the timeline that I previously posted now includes the above appeal in bold:

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
Judge Moody found for the plaintiffs (private property owners) on Feb 19, 2020
Redington Beach appealed to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 20, 2021
11th Circuit threw out Judge Moody's summary judgement and ordered a trial
Judge Moody removed himself and Judge Covington took over
CU prevails in court on August 12, 2024 (private property owners lost)

The above appeal still doesn't explain why Walton County threw in the towel before trial. By the way, the Redington Beach original court case was filed in Federal Court by the plaintiffs as opposed to Walton County filing at the Walton County Court level. Not sure if that made any difference other than possibly Walton County assuming that a local judge would find in favor for the county to begin with, trying to take the wind out of the beach front owners sails (just a guess).

I should have said Sept. 10, 2024 (yesterday). This appeal will take the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, again.

That might be a good idea. People that want to challenge that would have to sue the county and prove that CU has NOT been the established doctrine for hundred of years. It all seems to fall back on an "acting county attorney" who is trying to shirk his duties to the people of South Walton.

You do realize he inherited the case from his predecessors Sidney Nose the niece of her predecessor Mark Davis who also assisted with many of the quiet titles, his office is with Clark & Partington over on Grayton if you want to ask him.

You do realize he inherited the case from his predecessors Sidney Nose the niece of her predecessor Mark Davis who also assisted with many of the quiet titles, his office is with Clark & Partington over on Grayton if you want to ask him.

I start to get a little bit vomit in my mouth when I hear the words "acting county attorney". The last word about that subject I heard was that Glidewell made a motion to have Adkinson become the permanent county attorney, and no one would second the motion. Clay has also said he doesn't want the position. No commissioners have the guts to initiate a real bonafide search for a real county attorney. It's almost like they all have something to hide...

I start to get a little bit vomit in my mouth when I hear the words "acting county attorney". The last word about that subject I heard was that Glidewell made a motion to have Adkinson become the permanent county attorney, and no one would second the motion. Clay has also said he doesn't want the position. No commissioners have the guts to initiate a real bonafide search for a real county attorney. It's almost like they all have something to hide...

There's an ongoing recruitment effort, but nobody is interested in taking the job.

I should have said Sept. 10, 2024 (yesterday). This appeal will take the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, again.

Good info! Thanks.
I guess I'm a little confused with the appeals process as far as who hears it. Was it the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed Judge Moody's summary judgement that Redington Beach appealed? In other words, is this the same court?

Sooo.... there's still a possibility the Redington Beach private property owners might prevail. We'll have to see. Then I assume the next stop is the Florida Supreme Court. And if that happens, and if the private property owners still prevail, maybe the acting county attorney saved everybody a lot of money. But that assumes he knows something we don't.

Good info! Thanks.
I guess I'm a little confused with the appeals process as far as who hears it. Was it the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed Judge Moody's summary judgement that Redington Beach appealed? In other words, is this the same court?

Sooo.... there's still a possibility the Redington Beach private property owners might prevail. We'll have to see. Then I assume the next stop is the Florida Supreme Court. And if that happens, and if the private property owners still prevail, maybe the acting county attorney saved everybody a lot of money. But that assumes he knows something we don't.

Yes, same court. It is confusing. I had talked with the attorney for Redington Beach and asked if there was a possibility of an appeal of Judge Covington's ruling. He said that any appeal would go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (where the case had already been heard). Next stop, your guess is as good as mine.

Good info! Thanks.
I guess I'm a little confused with the appeals process as far as who hears it. Was it the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed Judge Moody's summary judgement that Redington Beach appealed? In other words, is this the same court?

Sooo.... there's still a possibility the Redington Beach private property owners might prevail. We'll have to see. Then I assume the next stop is the Florida Supreme Court. And if that happens, and if the private property owners still prevail, maybe the acting county attorney saved everybody a lot of money. But that assumes he knows something we don't.

It's in Federal courts so SCOF isn't in play.

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

I personally love this ruling!! I just wonder why Walton County folded as well about public use of dry sand. I am not a Floridian, but have been a visitor for 70 years! This past July I rented another beautiful home that was large and expensive to accommodate all my children and grandchildren. This was not a beach front home but steps from the beach literally. We were so disappointed to find out that the beaches to the left and right of us were privatized. That forced many families in this expensive area onto a postage sized beach area. NEVER AGAIN! I have grown up loving Florida but this was my last visit! I can take my $ where beaches are public. There are many beautiful beaches elsewhere. After researching this I came across info that implicated Senator Scott as introducing a bill to promote this? He must have some friends with expensive beachfront property. Please correct me if I am wrong. We were actually spied on constantly by these property owners. They had their own security! As soon as someone stepped on their precious dry sand area, the beach patrol appeared. The beach belongs to the public. When you buy a beach front home you are buying an unobstructed view not a private beach!!! I would be pissed if I were a Floridian paying taxes to maintain those beaches that I cannot use! So long Walton County. Many tourists and Floridians are opting out of vacations on 30A after reading posts on this forum. Change your Damm laws or lose tourist dollars.

It's in Federal courts so SCOF isn't in play.

I stand corrected.

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.

And that is exactly what is wrong with privatization of Public beaches! You don't have entitlement. It isn't your backyard. You don't and should not own any beach unless you own a whole island!
I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this started with northerners and Californian's fleeing their over taxed crime ridden cesspool of states just to take advantage of a free state. Leave your dam liberal ideologies where they belong, not here. We love Florida just as it is.

And that is exactly what is wrong with privatization of Public beaches! You don't have entitlement. It isn't your backyard. You don't and should not own any beach unless you own a whole island!
I wouldn't be one bit surprised if this started with northerners and Californian's fleeing their over taxed crime ridden cesspool of states just to take advantage of a free state. Leave your dam liberal ideologies where they belong, not here. We love Florida just as it is.

The majority of us enjoy the liberal ideologies. I agree with you that beaches should be for all and pretty sure that is what liberals would make happen.

I should have said Sept. 10, 2024 (yesterday). This appeal will take the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, again.

I know you said it was a guess as to the next step.

It's in Federal courts so SCOF isn't in play.

So do you guys think the next step for the losing party would be the U.S. Supreme Court?

Also, whatever happened to the federal case where the constitutionality of customary use was being challenged? I honestly thought that was going to tank CU once and for all.

I personally love this ruling!! I just wonder why Walton County folded as well about public use of dry sand. I am not a Floridian, but have been a visitor for 70 years! This past July I rented another beautiful home that was large and expensive to accommodate all my children and grandchildren. This was not a beach front home but steps from the beach literally. We were so disappointed to find out that the beaches to the left and right of us were privatized. That forced many families in this expensive area onto a postage sized beach area. NEVER AGAIN! I have grown up loving Florida but this was my last visit! I can take my $ where beaches are public. There are many beautiful beaches elsewhere. After researching this I came across info that implicated Senator Scott as introducing a bill to promote this? He must have some friends with expensive beachfront property. Please correct me if I am wrong. We were actually spied on constantly by these property owners. They had their own security! As soon as someone stepped on their precious dry sand area, the beach patrol appeared. The beach belongs to the public. When you buy a beach front home you are buying an unobstructed view not a private beach!!! I would be pissed if I were a Floridian paying taxes to maintain those beaches that I cannot use! So long Walton County. Many tourists and Floridians are opting out of vacations on 30A after reading posts on this forum. Change your Damm laws or lose tourist dollars.

I don't know if it matters, but being that Rick Scott's house in Naples is next to a Collier County public beach access, perhaps that had something to do with his actions.

(Public info) Rick Scott's house in Naples, FL

I don't know if it matters, but being that Rick Scott's house in Naples is next to a Collier County public beach access, perhaps that had something to do with his actions.

(Public info) Rick Scott's house in Naples, FL

If the beaches were already public next to Rick Scott's house as you state, then what would Rick Scott have to gain by signing 2018 HB631? It was not going to reverse the existing public beaches in Naples back to private.

BTW, you responded to the previous post where it was claimed that Rick Scott introduced the bill. That is simply not true.

After the bill passed by an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY in the house (95 Y - 17 N or 85% in favor of) AND in the senate (29 Y - 7 N or 80% in favor of), Rick Scott simply signed it. It would have been political suicide, in my opinion, for him to have opposed it after such a convincing vote.

Click here to see the bill's history. You might find it interesting to click on the Analysis tab.

All the CU people were constantly looking for someone to blame:
Mike Huckabee and his so called connections
Rick Scott
Property owners stealing beach via quiet title (amazing how this myth still floats around)
Old greedy white men with lots of money and powerful lawyers

But in the end, all the bill did was force the issue into court where it belonged as opposed to the county passing customary use with absolutely NO DUE PROCESS and completely undermining private property rights. Customary Use is not just claimed. It has to be proven in court. And, BTW, it was supposed to be proven on a parcel by parcel basis. I never understood how the county tried to convert over 1000 parcels into just 5 "defendants".

BUT....
The question still remains (and why I jumped into this thread), why did the county throw in the towel just before the trial was to start?

The question still remains (and why I jumped into this thread), why did the county throw in the towel just before the trial was to start?

Any theories?

Interesting..

HB 6001 (2025)

That's cool - that would be like waving a magic wand. He needs to change "30A" to "South Walton" to keep consistent with the story of customary use because that was what the area is historically known as before it was corrupted by private beaches, branding, over development and politics...kind of exposes he's a newcomer.

I LIKE JOEL!!!

The statute cited:


163.035 Establishment of recreational customary use.—
(1) DEFINITION.—The term “governmental entity” includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority.
(2) ORDINANCES AND RULES RELATING TO CUSTOMARY USE.—A governmental entity may not adopt or keep in effect an ordinance or rule that finds, determines, relies on, or is based upon customary use of any portion of a beach above the mean high-water line, as defined in s. 177.27, unless such ordinance or rule is based on a judicial declaration affirming recreational customary use on such beach.
(3) NOTICE OF INTENT TO AFFIRM RECREATION PUBLIC USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.—A governmental entity that seeks to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property must follow the procedures set forth in this subsection.
(a) Notice.—The governing board of a governmental entity must, at a public hearing, adopt a formal notice of intent to affirm the existence of a recreational customary use on private property. The notice of intent must specifically identify the following:
1. The specific parcels of property, or the specific portions thereof, upon which a customary use affirmation is sought;
2. The detailed, specific, and individual use or uses of the parcels of property to which a customary use affirmation is sought; and
3. Each source of evidence that the governmental entity would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute.

The governmental entity must provide notice of the public hearing to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the notice of intent at the address reflected in the county property appraiser’s records no later than 30 days before the public meeting. Such notice must be provided by certified mail with return receipt requested, publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the parcels of property are located, and posting on the governmental entity’s website.
(b) Judicial determination.—
1. Within 60 days after the adoption of the notice of intent at the public hearing, the governmental entity must file a Complaint for Declaration of Recreational Customary Use with the circuit court in the county in which the properties subject to the notice of intent are located. The governmental entity must provide notice of the filing of the complaint to the owner of each parcel of property subject to the complaint in the same manner as is required for the notice of intent in paragraph (a). The notice must allow the owner receiving the notice to intervene in the proceeding within 45 days after receiving the notice. The governmental entity must provide verification of the service of the notice to the property owners required in this paragraph to the court so that the court may establish a schedule for the judicial proceedings.
2. All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo. The court must determine whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the recreational customary use for the use or uses identified in the notice of intent have been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute. There is no presumption regarding the existence of a recreational customary use with respect to any parcel of property, and the governmental entity has the burden of proof to show that a recreational customary use exists. An owner of a parcel of property that is subject to the complaint has the right to intervene as a party defendant in such proceeding.
(4) APPLICABILITY.—This section does not apply to a governmental entity with an ordinance or rule that was adopted and in effect on or before January 1, 2016, and does not deprive a governmental entity from raising customary use as an affirmative defense in any proceeding challenging an ordinance or rule adopted before July 1, 2018.
History.—s. 10, ch. 2018-94.

Sorry Joel. But I’m sure this will win you popularity points.

Rep. Joel Rudman files bill to repeal beach access restrictions in South Walton

State Rep. Joel Rudman (R-District 3) filed legislation to repeal what he describes as a “problematic statute” that prevented Walton County from enacting local beach access ordinances.

The 2018 law led to the installation of traffic cones, ropes, no trespassing signs, and private security guards on South Walton beaches.
“For centuries, there has been a prevailing attitude that the beaches belong to everyone,” Rudman said in a press release. “The communities along 30A were founded on that concept. For years, visitors and residents alike were welcome to stroll the beaches and relax on the shores in a live-and-let-live manner, dogs included.”

Rudman, who says he has been visiting Walton County since the 1980s and owned property there since the 2000s, called the area “paradise” and said he has hosted five different legislators at his property in Seagrove Beach.

The lawmaker criticized the 2018 legislation as being influenced by “a select few special interests” and argued that beach access decisions should be made locally rather than by state government.

“Big Government has no business meddling in the affairs of 30A,” Rudman said. “I believe the citizens of Walton County should decide their beach access issues, not bureaucrats from Tallahassee.”
The bill seeks to put Walton County “on the same equal footing as every other county” regarding beach access regulations.

Rudman submitted his resignation from the Florida House last month to run for the congressional seat vacated by Matt Gaetz. His resignation, effective January 1, 2025, complies with Florida’s “resign-to-run” law requiring state officeholders to step down from their current position to seek federal office.