Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Lauderdale Boat Yard, LLC

• Decision Date: 05 January 2022
• Docket Number: 4D20-1184
• Citation: 336 So.3d 28
• Parties: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. LAUDERDALE BOAT YARD, LLC, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

336 So.3d 28

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant,

v.LAUDERDALE BOAT YARD, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D20-1184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 5, 2022]

Rafael Garcia, Interim General Counsel, and Marc Peoples, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel of Link & Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, and Charles R. Forman and Vanessa Thomas of Forman, Hanratty & Montgomery, Ocala, for appellee.

Klingensmith, J.

Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") appeals the trial court's final declaratory judgment finding that appellee Lauderdale Boat Yard ("LBY") had riparian rights of access to the South Fork of New River. The trial court found that LBY's riparian rights either attached at their boatlift seawall or alternatively attached at the boundary between two submerged parcels and that LBY had an implied easement to cross one submerged parcel and access New River. We reverse the trial court's judgment on both grounds.

LBY sued FDOT for a declaration that its property ("Tract A") had riparian rights of access to New River. Tract A was derived from an original larger property ("Parent Tract") that the federal government conveyed to the State of Florida in 1880. The legal description of the Parent Tract included uplands and submerged lands to the center of the South Fork of New River and riparian rights along the entire riverfront. Before LBY acquired the property, several previous owners substantially dredged and improved it, altering the amount of land above and below the water. These improvements included construction of a boatlift and an artificial covered basin surrounding it ("basin area").

In 1983, when the property was owned by LBY's predecessor, Choate, FDOT brought a condemnation action for a portion of the Parent Tract to construct the I-595 bridge. After the parties settled in 1985, the trial court entered a final judgment ("1985 judgment") requiring FDOT to compensate Choate $1.2 million for the taking of a large piece of submerged land ("Parcel 104") that included all access rights in the corridor where the I-595 bridge would be located, starting at a plane about forty feet above ground level. FDOT's taking did not include any ground level access rights and did not mention a taking of riparian rights.

FDOT also obtained a sovereign submerged land easement for a property adjacent to Parcel 104, known as Parcel 108. The sovereign submerged land easement allowed FDOT to construct the I-595 bridge on and above submerged land owned by the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which holds submerged lands in trust for the Floridian public.¹

The bridge was completed by 1988. The following year, Choate replatted his remaining upland property to create Tract A and quit-claimed it to his company, Artmarine. FDOT's taking eliminated the covered basin and some of the seawall where large boats previously docked, however Choate continued operating the property as a boatyard for smaller boats. For boats to use the boatlift, they needed to travel over Parcel 108, and at no time did FDOT object to Choate's use of the boatlift or his access to New River.

In 2016, LBY obtained Tract A, which included the uplands, the boatlift piers, and "all appurtenances." LBY retained the existing boatyard tenants and continued to operate Tract A as a boatyard. Title to Tract A did not include the remaining submerged lands between the boatlift seawall and the boundary with Parcel 108 or the boatlift. It is unclear whether Choate intended to retain any ownership interest in these dredged, submerged lands ("Choate Remnant Parcel").

A year later, FDOT notified LBY that it had no riparian rights of access to New River since those rights were condemned in the 1985 judgment. According to FDOT, this meant LBY had no legal right to use the boatlift. FDOT informed LBY that it planned to add travel lanes to the I-595 bridge and that the new bridge supports would likely restrict LBY's access from the boatlift to New River.

In 2019, LBY filed the underlying action seeking a declaratory judgment that it retained riparian rights of access to and from New River. Choate was not a party to the legal proceedings. Multiple experts testified at the non-jury trial where the main issue was whether LBY had riparian rights of access from the boatlift to the South Fork of New River.

The trial court issued a final judgment in favor of LBY with alternative rulings.

The trial court found that the mean high-water line² is located at the boatlift seawall and that all submerged land between the boatlift seawall and New River are subject to LBY's riparian access rights. This meant that LBY had riparian rights of access to New River emanating from LBY's boatlift seawall along Tract A's southern boundary.

The trial court also found the use of the boatlift and travel over Parcel 108 was essential to the boatyard operations and that LBY operated the boatyard as Choate had. So, the trial court made an alternative finding that the mean high-water line was the boundary of Parcel 108 and the Choate Remnant Parcel. Therefore, LBY had riparian rights of access emanating from the boundary between the Choate Remnant Parcel and Parcel 108 with an implied easement of necessity over the Choate Remnant Parcel. This appeal followed.

"On review of a declaratory judgment, we defer to the trial court's factual findings if supported by competent, substantial evidence." Vill. of N. Palm Beach v. S & H Foster's, Inc. , 80 So. 3d 433, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). "To the extent a decision rests on a question of law, however, an order is subject to de novo review." Crapo v. Provident Grp.-Continuum Props., L.L.C. , 238 So. 3d 869, 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

"In Florida, the State owns in trust for the public the land permanently submerged beneath navigable waters and the foreshore (the land between the low-tide line and the mean high-water line)." Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , 560 U.S. 702, 707, 130 S.Ct. 2592, 177 L.Ed.2d 184 (2010) (citing to Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.). The State has a duty to manage sovereign submerged lands "for the benefit of all the citizens of the State." City of West Palm Beach v. Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund , 746 So. 2d 1085, 1089 (Fla. 1999). To be considered sovereign submerged land, it must have been navigable when Florida joined the union. Picciolo v. Jones , 534 So. 2d 875, 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ("Only a waterbody which was navigable in its natural state at the time Florida became a state in 1845 is subject to federal or state sovereignty.").

"Although the issue of navigability requires resolving some factual questions based on the particular circumstances of each case, the ultimate conclusion as to navigability is a question of law inseparable from the particular facts to which they are applied." Briggs v. Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina , 9 So. 3d 29, 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Navigability is determined by "whether the body of water is permanent in character, and whether in its ordinary and natural state, it is navigable for useful purposes and so situated that it may be used for purposes common to the public in the locality where it is located." Brevard County v. Blasky , 875 So. 2d 6, 13–14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). "[C]apacity for navigation, not usage for that purpose, determines the navigable character of waters with reference to the ownership and uses of the land covered by the water." Lopez v. Smith , 145 So. 2d 509, 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). However, "[w]aters are not under our law regarded as navigable merely because they are affected by the tides." Clement v. Watson , 63 Fla. 109, 58 So. 25, 26 (1912).

If waters are navigable, the State owns the land below the mean high-water line as sovereign submerged land. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. , 560 U.S. at 707, 130 S.Ct. 2592. This makes the mean high-water line "[t]he boundary between public lands and private uplands." Walton County v. Stop Beach Renourishment, Inc. , 998 So. 2d 1102, 1113 (Fla. 2008), aff'd , Stop the Beach Renourishment , 560 U.S. 702, 130 S.Ct. 2592. "The mean high water line or ordinary high water mark ‘is described as the point up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to destroy the value of the land for agricultural purposes by preventing the growth of vegetation.’ " 5F, LLC v. Dresing , 142 So. 3d 936, 938 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Walker Ranch Gen. P'ship , 496 So. 2d 153, 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) ). "Those who own land extending to ordinary high-water mark of navigable waters are riparian holders who, by implication of law ... have in general certain special rights ... of access from the water to the riparian land ...." Brannon v. Boldt , 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Broward v. Mabry , 58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826, 830 (1909) ).

"Private riparian rights to navigable waters are given to those whose land extends to the high-water mark." Id. "Riparian rights are rights to use the water." BB Inlet Prop., LLC v. 920 N. Stanley Partners, LLC , 293 So. 3d 538, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Brannon , 958 So. 2d at 372 ). "In Florida, riparian rights include ‘(1) general use of the water adjacent to the property, (2) to wharf out to navigability, (3) to have access to navigable waters and (4) the right to accretions.’ " Tewksbury v. City of Deerfield Beach , 763 So. 2d 1071, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Belvedere Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. , 476 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1985) ). "[R]iparian rights are incident to the ownership of lands contiguous to and bordering on navigable waters." Dresing , 142 So. 3d at 940 (quoting Ferry Pass Inspectors’ & Shippers’ Ass'n v. White's River Inspectors’ & Shippers’ Ass'n , 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643, 644 (1909) ).

"Bodies of water which become navigable...