The property owners have filed their merits brief in the beachfront takings case, Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). The case presents three questions:
TheFlorida Supreme Court invoked “nonexistent rules of state substantivelaw” to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights areconstitutionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court’sdecision cause a “judicial taking” proscribed by the Fifth andFourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
Is theFlorida Supreme Court’s approval of a legislative scheme thateliminates constitutional littoral rights and replaces them withstatutory rights a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
Isthe Florida Supreme Court’s approval of a legislative scheme thatallows an executive agency to unilaterally modify a private landowner’sproperty boundary without a judicial hearing or the payment of justcompensation a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth andFourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
In the decision under review (Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.,998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008)), the Florida Supreme Court heldthat a state statute which prohibits “beach renourishment” without apermit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, eventhough it altered the long-standing rights of the owners to accretionon their land and direct access to the ocean.
More about the case on our resource page.