Coastal Rights discussion....

Based STRICTLY on the plat I would say yes.?ÿ "Riparian Rights Reserved" and the extension of the lot lines across that property would, in my opinion, indicate ownership of the property west of the right of way belongs to the owner of the associated lot on the east side of the right of way.

The OTHER Andy

Of course, I don't believe you can use the plat alone to make this determination. It looks like the intent of the Survey by projecting the lot lines across the road was to include the area west of the road with each lot. Have the owners across the road built docks based on this plat? Please share the corroborating information when you have heard enough discussion.

No docks, it's the Gulf of Mexico.?ÿ ?ÿAnd there is an Erosion Control line now in place between the westerly line shown on the old plat and the current?ÿ water line.?ÿ?ÿ

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1688581/belvedere-development-v-dept-of-transp/

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/1401-1600/06-1449_ACini%20_FSBPA_.pdf

?

DDSM

Riparian rights reserved to who?

What do the first Deeds out look like?

Posted by: Dave Karoly

Riparian rights reserved to who?

What do the first Deeds out look like?

Who indeed!?ÿ ?ÿ

I'll have to see if I can query the online records by subdivision like that.?ÿ ?ÿGood question.?ÿ?ÿ

?ÿ

Street is public, a strip reserved to John Dickey, the lots only extend to the road with reversionary rights. There are a number of names on lots on the plat, were they existing owners at the time of platting, or added later, I would think they would all have to sign if they were there at the time of platting.

To reserve something from a grant means the grantor keeps it, so the intention was for the grantor to keep the "riparian rights". I assume they meant?ÿlittoral rights, but what those rights are, I don't know. That answer has to come from someone familiar with Florida littoral rights. The "riparian rights" are not necessarily the same thing as ownership of all the land on the other side of the road. The fact that the lot lines are extended leads me to think that lots do extend across the road, but they do not have all the normal rights of Florida littoral properties.?ÿ

@andy-j

?ÿƒ??so just based on the plat alone, what do you think?ƒ?

ƒ??Riparian rights are reservedƒ??ÿ

They own the land and have riparian and littoral rights west of the R/W as well as on Pine Island Sound.

Sometimes on old Plats the edge of water is shown as the street R/W so presumably the water side R/W moves with the MHTL.

I think what they are trying to do in this case is reserve the riparian rights to the Lots to make it clear in a muddy way that the riparian rights are with the Lots, not the street.

They knew what they meant or they meant what they knew, something like that.

Posted by: Andy J

Let's just say there is conflicting corroborating evidence for either opinion, so just based on the plat alone, what do you think??ÿ?ÿ

Isn't that a little like saying "based only on the evidence presented by the prosecution, do you think the defendant is guilty?"?ÿ

I would suggest that when the question boils down to "it could be interpreted in the writings either way, so did the original grantor intend A or B" the best evidence of the answer is whether A or B?ÿ occurred on the ground in the years immediately subsequent to the grant, at the time when all the original parties were still present.

When dealing with older land records, surveying is like The X Files....the truth is out there.

I'm not asking you to sign my survey, just wondering how different people would look at the basic facts of the property creation.?ÿ?ÿ

Relevant?

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1688581/belvedere-development-v-dept-of-transp/

?ÿ

Posted by: Andy J

I'm not asking you to sign my survey, just wondering how different people would look at the basic facts of the property creation.?ÿ?ÿ

I would consider those lots to be continuous, from the water on the East to the water on the West... and the road is "probably" and easement, unless specifically granted in Fee.
You might want to get into checking out what the developer/subdivider had title to in the first place.
.
.
State Laws and Federal grants in Florida? I got no clue... they could change everything.

Posted by: Peter Ehlert

Posted by: Andy J

I'm not asking you to sign my survey, just wondering how different people would look at the basic facts of the property creation.?ÿ?ÿ

I would consider those lots to be continuous, from the water on the East to the water on the West... and the road is "probably" and easement, unless specifically granted in Fee.
You might want to get into checking out what the developer/subdivider had title to in the first place.
.
.
State Laws and Federal grants in Florida? I got no clue... they could change everything.

Peter,

?ÿ

I agree with that, and the majority of the evidence agrees as well.?ÿ ?ÿI think it would be pretty tough to prove that they intended to leave those small remainders.?ÿ ?ÿThe county GIS shows them as attached to the main parcel as well as a pretty thorough R/W map of the area from 20 years ago.?ÿ?ÿ

I would bet the parent parcel simply says something vague like All of Government Lot 2 between the bay and the Gulf of Mexico.?ÿ?ÿ

I would argue the lots extend to the Gulf and the road is an easement. "Riparian rights reserved" to me indicates they want the lot owners to retain ownership of the land adjacent to the gulf and that the road ROW is locked into place and not affected by the line along the gulf, or not littoral in nature. Meaning, if the applicable litoral boundary moves so that it crosses the road, the road easement would stay where it is, but the lots would stop wherever the littoral line is, potentially removing contact of the lot with the road (of course that would mean the road is underwater half the time and virtually useless.)

That the lot lines are projected to the west side of the road, it indicates an intent that the lots be waterfront on both sides of the road.?ÿ The statement "Riparian Rights Reserved" would seem to add some ambiguity as to whether that means reserved to Dickey, or reserved to the owners of the lots on the east side of the road.

Had the west side been shown as one parcel, I'd say the weight would be that the rights were reserved to Dickey.?ÿ That the lot lines were all extended and that there is not room to adequately label each of those slivers as parts of the east side lots, the intent is more likely that the littoral rights were reserved to the corresponding east side lot owners.

More title work needs to be researched to form an opinion to put a stamp on, but based on the plat alone, I'd say that it is most likely that the lots extend to both waterfronts, and the road is an easement with reversionary rights all the way across to each respective lot.