In its most recent review of the Mississippi Tidelands Act, the Supreme Court of Mississippi declared that tidelands were public trust lands, even though the State failed to include the lands on maps designating state property and did not place the landowner on notice. The court reaffirmed that an adjacent landowner who was granted a permit to build a pier over public trust lands had littoral rights and could build the pier as long as he followed the restrictions noted in the permit.

The Pier in Question
James and Sandra Hoover wanted to construct a T-shaped pier extending across their property and ending in Heron Bay and were granted the requisite permits by the applicable state agencies.1 Their neighbor, Stewart, claimed that the pier extended onto his property and promptly brought suit against the Hoovers seeking removal of the pier and restoration of his property to its original condition. He also requested damages for trespass, interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his property, destruction of vegetation, and changes in the natural watercourse. The State intervened in the lawsuit claiming that “any portion of the pier which is not located on Mr. Hoover’s property extends over tidally affected wetlands which are below the line of mean high tide, and therefore are public trust tidelands.”2

Ownership of the Tidelands
The court first declared that title to the tidelands belonged to the state. Under existing public trust principles, the title to the lands cannot be transferred without meeting a higher public purpose and the state cannot lose title through laches, limitations or adverse possession.3

The history of the state’s tideland ownership includes the Public Trust Tidelands Act which was adopted in 1989 in response to growing confusion about ownership of submerged lands. This Act put an end to potential conflicts between the state and private landowners by mapping out those lands included in the public trust. It also gave landowners a chance to contest the inclusions of their lands in the state’s public trust by providing written notice to landowners after which they could file suit. If a landowner failed to sue within three years after the map was finalized, the boundary between State and private lands was considered final.

Stewart’s land did not appear on the state’s preliminary or certified map nor did he receive any notice from the Secretary of State that his land was part of the public trust. Relying on this, Stewart argued that public trust lands were limited to those specified on the certified map and as his lands were not on the map, the state had no claim to them.

The court held that the legislature’s goal in the Tidelands Act did not include losing public trust lands due to an oversight in mapping. Because title to tidelands can’t be lost through laches, limitations or adverse possession, the State’s failure to assert ownership over the land did not result in a loss of public trust land. The court found that “whatever the reason for not including the subject property on the preliminary map or final certified map, the delay of the State in asserting its ownership interest should not be preclusive because such interest was not expressed in the maps.”4 The court required that the state include the property as part of the public trust in future mappings of the area.

Stuart’s Riparian Rights
Stewart also argued that the construction of the Hoover pier impaired his riparian rights. The court first determined that Stewart had littoral rights defined as “rights concerning properties abutting an ocean, sea or lake rather than a river or stream (riparian).”5 As a littoral landowner, however, Stewart did not obtain littoral rights over state lands. Regarding the pier, the court found that because the Hoovers adhered to the specifications of the permit, the pier was not in violation of Stewart’s littoral rights.

Conclusion
The Court held the property at issue was public trust tidelands even though it was not designated as such on the certified map as required by the Public Trust Tidelands Act and found that the Hoovers’ construction of the pier was within the landowners’ rights.

ENDNOTES
1. Stewart v. Hoover, 815 So.2d 1157 (Miss. 2002).
2. Id. at 1159.
3. Adverse possession is when property is acquired by non-permissive use of land under certain conditions. Laches occurs when there is an unreasonable delay or negligence in bringing a claim thereby prejudicing the other party. The limitations period is the statutory time in which a lawsuit can be brought in court, after which suit is not allowed. Bryan A. Gardner, Blacks Law Dictionary, 54, 879, 939 (7th Ed. 1999).
4. Stewart at 1162.
5. Stewart at 1163, quoting Watts v. Lawrence, 703 So.2d 236, 238 (Miss. 1997).

University of Mississippi