Guide to Florida Eminent Domain Law
Eminent Domain Process
Your Property Rights
Challenging the Government
Eminent Domain Definitions
Getting Full Compensation
Hiring an Eminent Domain Attorney
Previous Posts
Eminent Domain Used to Preserve History
Controversy Continues Over Using Eminent Domain to...
California Eminent Domain Controversy over Foreclo...
The Measure and Method for Determining Compensatio...
The Nature of the Power of Eminent Domain
Change in Shape of Your Property Entitles You to S...
Florida Eminent Domain Bill Passes in the House
What Is Eminent Domain?
Florida Eminent Domain Laws
Florida Land Use Eminent Domain Laws
Archives
March 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
April 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013


Florida Eminent Domain Blog | Gregory W. Stoner
The Florida Eminent Domain Law Firm, PA
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Exploring the Dissent in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.
We have spoken on several occasions about the legal challenge to the Beach and Shore Preservation Act (BSPA), but mostly we have looked at the majority opinion. However, it is the strength of the dissent's remarks that have cause the Supreme Court to hear the case, so it makes sense for us to take some time to understand what the dissent is saying.
The dissent notes that the majority opinion depends on severing littoral rights from literal contact with the water. The Supreme Court of Florida stated that the literal connection with the water is not inherent to riparian water rights, but the dissent states, "By essential, inherent definition, riparian and littoral property is that which is contiguous to, abuts, borders, adjoins, or touches water."
The dissent makes significant use of Belvedere Development Corporation v. Department of Transportation (1982), which agrees with the principle that "To speak of riparian or littoral rights unconnected with ownership of the shore is to speak a non sequitur," as well as utilizing a number of earlier decisions for definitional support of littoral rights being based on actual contact with the water. Belvedere is a case in which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) sought to acquire land at the water's edge of properties using eminent domain and paying only a simple fee for the land actually taken without paying severance damages, which the Court decided was inappropriate because taking upland property inherently severed the property from the water.
Most importantly, the dissent calls attention to Hughes v. Washington (1967), which notes the soundness of the principle of accretion and reliction rights, saying "Any other rule would leave riparian owners continually in danger of losing the access to the water which is often the most valuable feature of their property, and continually vulnerable to harassing litigation challenging the location of the original water lines."
The dissent acknowledges that the BSPA may be constitutional if it allowed Florida to restore the beach only to the point that the new water line were at the ECL, but as soon as it goes beyond that to create new beach, it must acknowledge that doing so constitutes a partial taking that severs littoral property rights from the upland property.
It will be interesting to see whether the US Supreme Court upholds the Florida Supreme Court decision or favors the dissent.
If you believe that the actions of a federal, state, or local government constitute a taking of your property, you may be able to file an inverse condemnation lawsuit. The Florida Property Rights Law Firm, PA can help you protect your property and your rights. Please contact us today to learn more.
posted by Tiffany at 5:16 PM
0 comments