Anderson v. Bell, XX-279

• Decision Date: 25 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. XX-279,XX-279
• Citation: 411 So.2d 948
• Parties: Herbert C. ANDERSON and Joan Anderson, Appellants, v. Sam BELL, George Bell and James E. Estes, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 948

411 So.2d 948

Herbert C. ANDERSON and Joan Anderson, Appellants, v. Sam BELL, George Bell and James E. Estes, Appellees.

No. XX-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 1982.

W. J. Oven, Jr., of Oven, Gwynn & Lewis, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Gordon D. Cherr of Frates, Jacobs, Farrar, Novey, Blanton & Poole, Tallahassee, for appellees.

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellants seek review of a declaratory judgment in which the lower court determined they did not have exclusive rights to a man-made lake and the subsequent denial of an injunction which would have prohibited appellees from using that portion of the lake which overlies the land owned by appellants. We affirm.

In 1965, appellants purchased a large tract of land containing a small non-navigable creek which led to the center of the property where a low swampy area was located. Appellants excavated the area, cleared the land, secured an easement from adjacent land owners, and constructed an earthen dike across the creek. The flooding that resulted became a lake that has existed for fourteen years. The resulting lake inundated a large part of appellants' property as well as a portion of the property owned by the adjacent land owners. In the easement deed the adjoining land owners retained "title to and beneficial use of all said lands ... except for the right to flood portions, thereof ...." Appellee George Bell now owns the adjoining land so inundated. The lake bed is therefore, currently owned by appellants and George Bell.

Appellees Sam Bell and James Estes do not own any land on the lake but use the lake for fishing by entering the lake from George Bell's property presumably with his permission. At some point appellants requested that appellees stop using the lake. Appellees refused. Subsequently, appellants filed a declaratory action seeking definition of their right to exclusive use of the lake and for an injunction prohibiting appellees' use of that portion of the lake which overlays appellants' flooded property. The trial court determined appellants do not have the right to exclude others who have lawful access from the portion of the lake overlying appellants' property and, therefore, declined to issue the injunction.

In Florida, the law as to non-navigable natural lakes has been clear. Owners of property with portions including part of a lake bottom have a right to use all of the waters of the lake so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with the rights of others. Duval v. Thomas, 114 So.2d 791 (Fla.1959). While it is not quite as clear, our study of Silver Blue Lake Apartments, Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake Home Owners Association, 245 So.2d 609 (Fla.1971) convinces us that the same law has been extended to include man-made artificial lakes.

In Silver Blue Lake, the Supreme Court found valid a restrictive covenant limiting use of an artificial lake to members of a homeowners association. However, the court also stated:

In our view, as an abstract proposition, the right of owners of a portion of the bed (of an artificial lake, which is found as a fact from the evidence to be a non-navigable lake,) to rent their rights to use of the water surface to tenants of an apartment complex on the land including a portion of the lake bed, is only the right of lawful and reasonable use not detrimental to other owners or lawful users ....

Id. at 612.

We consider the Supreme Court's opinion to reflect that were it not for the restrictive covenants, the apartment tenants in that case would have had access to the entire surface...