|
Brannon v. Boldt, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 644 (Fla. Dist. App. Jan. 24, 2007)
Kathryn L. Burgess, 2L, University of Mississippi School of Law
Background
A group of neighbors who live near the Boca Ciega Bay in St. Petersburg’s Bay Park Gardens neighborhood wanted the legal right to sit and stand on land subject to an easement to fish in the bay, watch fireworks and the sunset, and enjoy the view of the bay. Title to the land in dispute is owned by the plaintiffs, the Brannons.
The controversy here arose over the interpretation of the easement that runs with the land. The Brannons saw the other neighbors as trespassers on their property when they were on the easement for longer periods of time than the Brannons felt was reasonably necessary to access the bay. The neighbors felt that they have the right to be on the easement as long as is necessary to enjoy their riparian rights.
The original purpose of the easement was to create driveways and permit easy access to and from four different tracts of land, designated A-D. The easement also created a convenient way to reach the water from the landlocked tracts. The home in which the Brannons live, which is built on tracts A and B, was constructed so that the easement runs down the driveway, which is very close to the living room and kitchen, before it goes into the backyard. The judge noted that “anyone who owns the home on tracts A and B will always have a sense that neighbors are invading their personal space when the neighbors use the easement.”1 There was a seawall that was built on tracts C and D, which are the only two waterfront tracts. This seawall caused erosion of the public beach along the bay, so that the easement runs to a place that is of little to no value to neighbors who have only public rights to access the water.
This easement dispute was sparked when the Brannons installed two gates across the easement. A security gate was placed across their driveway at the front of the property, and another gate was placed closer to the water and closed off their entire backyard. These gates were locked, which made the easement inaccessible to the neighbors. The neighbors sued the Brannons and sought a declaration that all of the neighbors had an implied easement across that property, the right to use it to access the bay, and the associated riparian rights. The Henters, next-door neighbors to the Brannons, also claimed that they had the right to unobstructed access to their backyard through the easement, and said that the gate was an unreasonable obstruction.
After a hearing the trial court rejected the Brannons’ defenses and held that an easement was created for the Henters to have access to their backyard. The court also held that the easement is for the benefit of all the neighbors to gain access to and from the bay and that it conveys the riparian rights associated with those lands. The court ordered the gate that the Brannons put up to be removed because it was an unreasonable obstruction to the Henters’ right of passage and view. The Brannons appealed.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision concerning the interference of the gates with the Henters’ property. The only remaining issue was the nature and the extent of the riparian rights the neighbors have by their easement by implication.
The court described the two categories of riparian rights, public and private. Public rights permit the use of navigable waters for navigation, commerce, fishing, bathing, and other easements allowed by law. These rights encompass the land below the high-water mark. Owners of riparian land share those rights with the public. Private riparian rights are possessed by those whose land extends to the high-water mark and include, among other things, the right to an unobstructed view of the water (in Florida, at least).
The court came to the realization that, in this case, there is little or no land that now exists below the high-water mark. The court’s final conclusion was that the purpose of the easement by implication is to give the neighbors access to the water and the rights below the high-water mark. The neighbors have the right to cross the Brannons’ property for a reasonable amount of time, but no right to remain on the easement for extended periods of time to view the water, fireworks, or the sunset.
Endnotes
1. Brannon v. Boldt, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 644 at *7 (Fla. Dist. App. Jan. 24, 2007). |