Please update your links! Our new website url is http://masglp.olemiss.edu . This old website will soon cease to exist!

City's Riparian Rights Stem From Public Street
City of Orange Beach v. Benjamin, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 409 (Ala. Nov. 9, 2001).

Jason Dare, 2L

According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the City of Orange Beach lawfully obtained a fee simple property interest in the land adjacent to Terry Cove in order to build a street, thereby giving the city riparian rights in the navigable waterway. Pursuant to its riparian rights, the city was allowed to prevent a couple from using a pier they built on the cove, despite the fact the couple received permission from the city to build it.

Background
Gulf Drive is a street located between William and Margaret Benjamin’s property and Terry Cove, a navigable waterway off the coast of Orange Beach, Alabama. Gulf Drive was dedicated in fee simple to the City of Orange beach according to statute and runs parallel to and along the water’s edge.1 In 1994, believing that they maintained riparian rights even though a street separated their property from the water, the Benjamins sought, and received, a permit to construct a pier. The building inspector, believing that Orange Beach merely had jurisdiction over Gulf Drive and not the water of the cove, issued the permit. Accordingly, the Benjamins constructed the pier.

Orange Beach filed a complaint with the Baldwin Circuit Court seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the Benjamins from accessing the pier, pursuant to the city’s alleged riparian rights over the water. The lower court ruled in favor of the Benjamins, and the city appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Challenge to Riparian Rights
A riparian property owner, one who possesses property adjoining an ocean or other saltwater body generally has the right to access navigable water in front of his or her property and has the right to wharf out into that water. 2 Therefore, if the court found the Benjamins were riparian owners, they would have the right to construct a pier into Terry Cove. The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, determined that because Gulf Drive had been lawfully dedicated in fee simple to Orange Beach and the waters of Terry Cove abutted Gulf Drive and not the Benjamins property, the City of Orange Beach was the proper riparian owner. As a result, the Court held that the Benjamins “were not entitled to build and should not be permitted to use or maintain a pier extending into those waters.”3
The Benjamins contended, citing a 1913 Alabama Supreme Court case, that when streets are dedicated to the public, they are done so as an easement, leaving the “ultimate fee” with the abutting landowners.4 If correct, this would change Orange Beach’s property interest in the street and maintain the landowner’s riparian rights. The Court rejected this argument because the unambiguous language of the statute that dedicated the land to Orange Beach clearly provided for “a conveyance in fee simple.”5 When the language of a statute, according to the Court, has a “commonly understood meaning,” a court should not interpret the statute in any other way.6

Equitable Estoppel Argument
The Benjamins also alleged that because the city’s building inspector informed them that Orange Beach had no jurisdiction over Terry Cove and issued a permit to build the pier, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should prevent the city from disclaiming the validity of the permit. Equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that bars one party from inducing another into action through false information. The doctrine, however, will only apply to states in extreme situations and will not prevent “the correction . . . of a mistake of law.”7 Because the building inspector’s assertion to the Benjamins was a “misstatement of law,” the Supreme Court of Alabama held that Orange Beach should be able to cure the mistake. Therefore, the Court rejected the Benjamin’s equitable estoppel argument.

Conclusion
A city may attain riparian rights pursuant to a fee simple dedication of a street. Once vested, these rights allow a city to prevent non-riparian owners from taking certain actions in that waterway, such as building a pier. Furthermore, a statement from a city official that the city does not possess these rights will not bar the city from asserting them in the future. For the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the lower court’s ruling that the Benjamins could continue using a pier they built in Terry Cove, and remanded the case for an order consistent with the ruling.

ENDNOTES
1. Ala. Code § 35-2-51 (2001). The statute states that “the acknowledgment and recording of such plat or map shall be held to be a conveyance in fee simple . . . and the premises intended for any street . . . shall be held in trust for the uses and purposes intended or set forth in such plat or map.”
2. See Dorroh v. McCarthy, 462 S.E.2d 708, 709-11 (Ga. 1995).
3. City of Orange Beach v. Benjamin, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 409, at *4 (Ala. Nov. 9, 2001).
4. Cloverdale Homes v. Town of Cloverdale, 62 So. 712, 716 (Ala. 1913).
5. Ala. Code § 35-2-51 (2001).
6. Orange Beach, 2001 Ala. LEXIS 409, at *5.
7. Id. at *6 (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. U.S., 176 F. Supp. 768, 772 (M.D. Ala 1959))

University of Mississippi