SGI lot owners sue to limit beachfront use

A handful of residents of the Plantation gated community on St. George Island who own property along the Gulf of Mexico are suing their homeowners association in a case that could lead to greater restrictions on who can use portions of the beachfront behind their homes.

Attorney William Dunaway, with Clark Partington, a firm with offices in Pensacola, Destin and Santa Rosa Beach, represents Greg and Linda Struble, as well as MJM Real Estates Investments LLC, all of whom have beachfront property. They are suing the St. George Plantation Owners Association, LLC, the largest and most inclusive of a handful of smaller homeowners associations in the Plantation.

The issue at hand is what effect the extensive erosion of beachfront behind their homes has had on the original easements stipulated in the plat for the Plantation created over four decades ago. In addition, Dunaway’s suit seeks clarification on the scope of those original easements as to whether they just granted other Plantation owners and their guests mere access to the Gulf or greater use.

According to Dunaway’s Oct. 24 filing, the Strubles own one of 18 beachfront lots that are among 67 found in the Plantation Beach Village subdivision. The suit claims that in July 1982, when then-landowner Gene Brown was platting the property for creation of the Plantation, that he specified that “all streets, roads, rights of way and easements (were for) the private use of the owners within Plantation Beach Village,” and that this was “a private and not public dedication.”

The easements at issue were a 30-foot access easement and a 100–foot beach access easement. The southern boundary of the plat is the mean high water line. Beachfront that is seaward of this line, which is often called “wet beach” is specified in Florida law as being accessible for use by the public, and that allowance is not being challenged in this issue.

What is at issue in the so-called “dry beach,” the land north of the mean high water line, and the effect that beach erosion has had on the original designation.

The Strublkes contend that when they bought the property six years ago, their property was about 440-feet deep and 100-feet wide, but that by last year, while the width had remained the same, the property was now only about 247-feet deep.

The Strubles’ complaint argues that the owners association was aware of the approximately 50 percent loss of their property and “took no action to preserve whatever property rights lot owners in Plantation Beach Village may have acquired through the plat.”

The suit argues that no other property owners in the entire Plantation took action to slow or prevent the erosion of the property, or any of the beachfront lots.

Over recent years, there have been a variety of proposals circulating regarding beach renourishment, how it might be done and who would pay for it, and that clearly is a background issue surrounding this suit.

Asked about this, Dunaway did not comment about the issue of beach renourishment, noting only that questions regarding the facts surrounding these easements would have to be resolved before any plan regarding restoring the beachfront could be put in place.

The suit notes that the homeowners association has no property interest “other than to maintain the access roads and easements” and has no legal authority to “increase the burden on the property (or) to authorize trespass.”

The suit contends that on Oct. 10, the homeowners association granted its members “free use of the property… seaward of the dune line to the mean high water mark.”

The suit argues that “a valid legal dispute” exists as to the extent of use allowed in the 100-foot beach easement from the dune line to the mean high water mark, and that the homeowners association is encouraging trespass. It says that the easements never allowed for the “use” of this area, but merely as a means to access the water.

Dunaway’s suit says the plaintiffs regard the 100-foot easement as fixed, and thus no longer exists due to the erosion.

The Strubles have posted No Trespassing signs, and the suit argues they have the legal right to exclude persons from their private property.

The suit asks Circuit Judge Frank Allman to rule that the 100-foot easement is “fixed and unmovable” and is today underwater due to beach loss; and that the easements do not grant any Plantation lot owner the right to use the private beach area of the property. It also seeks to establish that the homeowners association not be allowed to take any action regarding the No Trespass signs, that it not be “purporting to allow trespassing,” and that attorney’s fees be awarded.

“My clients are all private beach fronting property owners and none of them wanted to have to sue their own owners’ association,” said Dunaway. “But when the owners’ association took action against my objection to limit important private property rights, my clients acted to protect their private property rights.

“In this case, the property rights at issue are clearly stated on the plats in St. George Plantation and those property rights cannot be changed by the owners’ association,” he said. “We are confident that a circuit court judge in Franklin County will agree and will protect my clients’ private property rights and will prevent the owners’ association from taking or placing limits of those rights.”

The owners’ association has retained the services of Tampa attorney Jessica Skoglund Mazariego, with the firm of Jimerson Burr, to defend it.

In a Nov. 25 motion to dismiss, she argued that the Struble and MJM cases, as well as those later filed by Cathy Caddell, Patrick Pellicano, and Clayton and Melanie Sembler, be consolidated into one “to avoid conflicting rulings or inconsistent verdicts” since they pertain to the same beach easements, as well as to the owners’ associations’ governing documents and recent amendments.

The association’s attorney seeks to have the judge rule that joint mediation be pursued first, and that the plaintiffs be barred from recovering attorney’s fees.