Democratic Women’s Club hosts informational meeting on the quiet title process and cases [PREMIUM]

STEVE HALL responds to questions from attendees. (Photo by Dotty Nist)

By DOTTY NIST

Recent focus on the public’s rights to use of the beach has enhanced interest in the quiet title court process. Accordingly, on July 30 the Walton County Democratic Women’s Club (DWC) hosted an informational meeting on this topic with featured speaker Steve Hall, attorney, and Tom McGee, a longtime south Walton County resident and former judge in Louisiana, speaking.

The meeting, which took place at the Coastal Branch Library, was very well attended.

Kay Brief of the DWC, organizer for the meeting, introduced Hall. During her introduction, she voiced concern about the quiet title process and its potential impacts on customary use.

In 2016, Hall had been enlisted to provide a report to the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on the quiet title process and quiet title actions with regard to Walton County and particularly the beaches. He has continued to monitor quiet title actions.

Quiet title general information

Hall explained that quiet title actions take place in Walton County Circuit Court. He described issues to be determined by quiet title actions, one of which may be “a determination of rights between two property owners who are in an adverse relationship already.” There may also be “friendly quiet titles,” where the relationship between parties is not adverse, he added later.

Quiet title actions are often used to settle a “cloud on the title” of property that an owner may need to sell, he explained.

Hall noted that Chapter 65 of Florida Statutes is dedicated to quiet title actions. The chapter title is “Quieting Title” This chapter grants circuit courts the authority to make these judgments, he explained.

While most often used to clear up a cloud on a tax deed, the next leading use of a quiet title action is to “interpret ancient documents,” Hall continued, noting that written record documents may not be very clear and may be subject to different opinions. These may involve “plat interpretation cases,” he explained, adding that many neighborhoods in Walton County are “ancient neighborhoods,” platted many years ago.

Walton County’s role

In response to the question whether Walton County is defending public rights in connection with quiet title cases, Hall commented on the distinction between property that the county has fee title to, the base of ownership, and property in which the county has an interest such as an easement interest. A fee title owner may be subject to a dominant easement right in some instances that may prevent the use of their property in some fashion, he indicated.

The county, Hall continued, has a “representative right,” to regulate property for health, safety and welfare of the public, which is also known as “police powers.”

Most important to remember, he told attendees, is that anyone who is not before the circuit court in a quiet title action as a party, or is allowed by a judge to intervene upon request, cannot have their property rights negatively affected by the action.

Asked if the county may act in response to a quiet title action, Hall responded that they cannot unless joined in the case as a defendant or allowed to intervene by the judge. If the county is not named in the case and therefore is not notified about it, their interest on behalf of the public, including public rights related to the property, cannot be impacted by a quiet title action, he continued.

In response to another question, Hall said that the attorney for the plaintiff or plaintiffs in a lawsuit decides who to serve (list as defendants). Some plaintiffs’ attorneys in quiet title lawsuits have served Walton County and later dropped the county as a defendant, he reported, because of rights (of the plaintiffs) that could be affected by the county being a party.

McGee indicated that even if a plaintiff is able to obtain fee simple ownership of a property through a quiet title action, that ownership will still be subject to any right of customary use affirmed by the county.

LEADING THE Democratic Women’s Club (DWC) meeting on quiet title were (from left) south Walton County resident Tom McGee, who chaired the county’s Customary Use Ordinance Advisory Committee, moderator Karen McGee of the DWC, and attorney Steve Hall. (Photo by Dotty Nist)

Discussion on cases

Hall discussed a number of quiet title cases involving beach subdivision plats showing a portion labeled simply as “beach,” with no dedication of that property. In these cases, he noted, beachfront property owners sought and succeeded in having the court rule for the beach property to be added to their respective lots.

Despite those rulings, if there is a public right associated with the property in question, a customary use right, for instance, the fee simple ownership of the added property doesn’t affect those rights, he commented.

Hall brought up a quiet title case related to the Gulf Shore Manor subdivision, Kennedy v. Walton County and Smart. The case was in connection with a 1925 subdivision plat showing areas between the seaward edge of platted lots as “Gulf Shore Beach” and “Bathing Beach.”

In the case, owners of several contiguous lots, including a beachfront lot, sought a quiet title action to relieve them of any claim Walton County might have to property south of those lots in the areas designated as beach on the plat.

Walton County had been named as a party and filed a response opposing that claim, asserting a right of the public to customary use of the beach on the property in question. Relatives of the other defendants also joined in opposing the claim, Hall reported.

The plaintiffs first dismissed the county from the lawsuit and then dismissed the whole case, he noted.

Walton County has the ability to act in the interest of the public as was done in the latter case, Hall told attendees, although every case is different. He reported that the judiciary is now paying closer attention than previously to case of this nature, and they are being argued by attorneys on both sides.

SeaHighland quiet title cases

Hall discussed the Israel v. Pender quiet title case involving a “breezeway” adjacent to the lot of the plaintiffs in the SeaHighland subdivision in the Seagrove area. Plats for the subdivision from the 1940s depict 20-foot-wide breezeways at east/west boundaries of the subdivision lots, running north and south.

Covenants recorded in 1948 for the subdivision provided, in part, that “the breezeway spaces between the lots on the East and West sides shall be open and free of structures so as not to obstruct the view of other property owners and so as to permit the free flow of air.”

Hall noted that, while the subdivision plat dedicated a “Beach Reserved for Public,” the dedication did not mention the breezeways. Streets and road dedicated to the public on the subdivision plat include Birmingham Street, Montgomery Street, Headland Avenue, Greenwood Avenue, Andalusia Avenue, and Dothan Avenue.

In October 2016, Walton County Circuit Court Judge Thomas R. Santurri ruled that the original SeaHighland developer (W.B. Pender) had in effect conveyed fee simple title to the eastern 10 feet of the breezeway adjacent to the Israels’ lot, along with fee simple title to the lot itself.

The Israels had named as defendants 17 parties identified as heirs of the original developer.

In connection with his ruling, Judge Santurri emphasized, “This Court’s ruling does not have any impact, determination of adjudication on the rights of unnamed parties.”

Originally Walton County had been joined in the Israel quiet title case, but the attorney for the plaintiffs had later dropped the county, Hall reported.

The Israel v. Pender decision, Hall continued, set the stage for Hidell, et al, v. Pender, also involving SeaHighland (filed in August 2017) with numerous property owners claiming to own to the center line of breezeways adjacent to their lots.

Notably, the lawsuit complaint includes two claims in connection with Lot 5, Block J, one of the beachfront lots that is located on the west end of the subdivision. The owners of this lot assert ownership not only of the western 10 feet of the breezeway between Lot 5, Block J and adjacent Lot 4, Block J—but also ownership of a 20-foot-wide “breezeway,” “located to the West of Lot 5, Block J…” Based on the plat, the latter is the apparent location of Headland Avenue, which is among the roads and streets dedicated to the public by the SeaHighland subdivision plat.

The south side of the Headland Avenue right-of-way had come under public discussion at a Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting in  April 2016, when Walton County Tourist Development (TDC) staff had brought forward a proposal to construct a public beach access at that location. The proposal had been described as a rebuilding of a neighborhood beach access that had been in existence prior to being destroyed by impacts of Hurricane Dennis in 2005. There had been public comment in favor of construction of the access and also strong opposition to its construction by neighboring homeowners.

A motion by then-District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows to approve the access construction had failed in a 2-3 vote, resulting in BCC direction to the TDC not to proceed with the beach access.

In July 2016 the BCC held a workshop on the topic of the proposed Headland Avenue beach access, with public comment again coming in both for and against the access, with opposition from neighboring property owners and others, who voiced objections related to safety, drainage, and close proximity of other public beach accesses, among others. No action was taken.

Several months later, Meadows brought up heavy landscaping that had been installed by neighbors of the Headland right-of-way in the area of a path in the proposed access area, a path that had previously been used by people to get to the beach. She requested that Walton County Public Works take a look at the landscaping. Landscaping remains in place at the location, and there has been no further action toward the construction of the proposed beach access.

The Hidell, et al, v. Pender quiet title case is ongoing, with David W. Green, presiding judge, having signified in an April 2018 letter that he would defer entering a final judgment, in order for it to be ensured that all persons who were parties to the lawsuit had been served.

ATTENDEES AT the July 30 informational meeting. (Photo by Dotty Nist)

New and Tippins v. Bradford

The remaining case discussed by Hall was New and Tippins v. Bradford. This was not a quiet title case but involved a claim of customary use. In the lawsuit, homeowners in the interior of the Gulf Trace subdivision claimed that the dedication of a 10-foot-wide walkway to the beach created an easement for all subdivision lot owners to access and use the subdivision beachfront, including the portion south of the Bradford residence, where the homeowners had taken actions to prevent other homeowners from using the beach.

In a July 2016 decision, Judge Green rejected the plaintiffs’ argument and ruled that, based on plat language for the subdivision, the walkway did not create an easement, “along or across the beachfront.”

The case included a Count II claim that the use of the beach section by the public for traditional recreation, “has historically been reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute,” and that the public therefore has “a customary right to use the dry sandy areas” seaward of the vegetation line from Grayton Beach to Topsail Hill Preserve State Park for such recreation.

No decision regarding the customary use count was provided in connection with the July 2016 order, but the court did not rule out that rights to use of the beach might exist in connection with the customary use argument.

Hall reported that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count II, resulting in the customary use argument contained in the case never being argued or ruled on. The case is now closed.

Upcoming county meeting, other information

Karen McGee of the DWC encouraged attendees to plan on attending the BCC public meeting at which the county will consider the adoption of a new customary use ordinance. The meeting is set for 9 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 8, at South Walton High School. McGee also encouraged attendees to submit evidence of customary use to the office of Sidney Noyes, county attorney, or to volunteer to testify on customary use. Submittals may be emailed to Noyes’ office at beachissues@co.walton.fl.us.

Tom McGee commented that lawsuits, “are won on the best possible evidence.”

Hall remarked that years ago, while living in Okaloosa County, he had witnessed the unfolding in Destin of a process similar to the one now taking place in Walton County in connection with customary use of the beach. Destin, he recalled, had looked at a similar ordinance. “They turned it down,” Hall reported.

He said the difference he has seen with Walton County has been, “the way the citizens (have) responded…with passion and consistent advocacy.”

Information on the Walton County Democratic Women’s Club and club events is available on the website www.waltoncountydwc.org and on the club’s Facebook page.