-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
US Supreme Court says Florida can Widen Beaches
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
I never thought anyone "owned" the beach. ;-)
Andy A
Beach Fanatic
Finally, some good beach news
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision today in the case of the six beachfront owners who sued saying their land rights had been impinged upon. In an 8-0 decision the court found that beach nourishment could proceed without compensation to beachfront owners.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100617018/1006/RSS01
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision today in the case of the six beachfront owners who sued saying their land rights had been impinged upon. In an 8-0 decision the court found that beach nourishment could proceed without compensation to beachfront owners.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100617018/1006/RSS01
Bud livingston you're correct in a legal way. But many people advocating private beaches were counting on this ruling to bolster there case.as far as private beaches go the letter of the law is to make it legal one must survey the property daily. a private owner owns to the"mean high tide water mark". mean high tide mark is the avg high tide over a 18 year period. that"average" changes every single day thus to make it legal you must legally recalulate and resurvey the property daily.that entails having a survey professional on staff and moving the"property pins" daily.
GoodWitch58
Beach Fanatic
Some good news, we can all surely use about now!
futurebeachbum
Beach Fanatic
Em
Beach Fanatic
[
Again, I am not a lawyer but I did watch Matlock.
It seemed Judge Scalia's ruling establishes an erosion control line in lieu of the mean high water mark. So the folks own it down to the ECL ASSUMING the deeds said their property went that far.
In Blue Mt there are owners who CLAIM their property goes down the mean high water mark but the original plat shows the lots only go down to the toe of the dune line.
Let me insert that I only scanned the brief. I will download it and print it off-I'm old school I can't read a lot from the web.
Again, I am not a lawyer but I did watch Matlock.
It seemed Judge Scalia's ruling establishes an erosion control line in lieu of the mean high water mark. So the folks own it down to the ECL ASSUMING the deeds said their property went that far.
In Blue Mt there are owners who CLAIM their property goes down the mean high water mark but the original plat shows the lots only go down to the toe of the dune line.
Let me insert that I only scanned the brief. I will download it and print it off-I'm old school I can't read a lot from the web.
miznotebook
Beach Fanatic
Hey, Buz, don't feel bad I haven't read it yet either but I'm going to. I know that the state does establish an Erosion Control Line on property where large-scale beach restoration projects are going to take place, and it has been their position that this line separates private property (for properties deeded to the high water line or the gulf) from the part of the beach considered to be publicly owned.The ECL was a big point of contention with the property owners' lawsuits. It sounds like the justices upheld the concept of the ECL. I'm not sure what effect if any the decision will have on beachfront property other than where large-scale beach restoration projects have taken place.
P.S. The ECL is established at the mean high water line location averaged out over a 19-year period.
P.S. The ECL is established at the mean high water line location averaged out over a 19-year period.
Last edited:
30A Skunkape
Skunky
This activist Supreme Court that does not understand property rights is an outrage. I think they must have been looking at European law for precedent!
Anyone wanna blow off some steam by playing beach volleyball? I know where there is a nice net:funn:
Anyone wanna blow off some steam by playing beach volleyball? I know where there is a nice net:funn: