11th Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Evidence was Sufficient to Support Takings Claim by Beachfront Property Owners

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

In 2006, the Chmielewskis initiated a quiet title action against the City, the Hotel, and the Don CeSar Place Property Association to confirm their ownership of the  subject beach parcel. The Chmielewskis obtained partial summary judgment in 2008, which established their fee simple ownership in the residential lot and in the contiguous strip of beach parcel, subject to a 1925 plat restriction. The plat restriction provided that all Don CeSar Subdivision owners retained their right to use Block M, including the Chmielewskis’ beach parcel, for “beach and bathing purposes.” The plat also prohibited building any structure on Block M. As part of the settlement in the quiet title action, the City agreed that its ownership of five lots in the Subdivision did not give the general public the right to use Block M. During World War II, the federal government acquired that land, known as the Don Vista property. In 1975, it deeded this property to the City with the requirement that the lot could not be used for public beach access. The owners of the beachfront property brought a §1983 action against the City, alleging that City encouraged and invited access to property by the general public, causing an illegal seizure in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and a taking without just compensation in violation of the state constitution. The United States District Court denied the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Chmielewskis and awarded $1,489,700 in damages.

On appeal, the court found that the evidence at trial supported the jury’s finding that a physical taking occurred through the continuous occupation of the Chmielewskis’ property by members of the general public. Here, the record reflected that the City encouraged public occupation by placing beach access signs, clearing vegetation, creating nearby parking spaces, hosting events at the property, and refusing to remove trespassers. The City’s actions, therefore, imposed a de facto public access easement on the Chmielewskis’ property. In light of these facts, the court declined to hold that the evidence was “so overwhelmingly in favor of the [City] that a reasonable jury could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” The court therefore found no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict.

Next, the City, in its post-trial motions, asked the court to transfer title to the Chmielewskis’ beach parcel. The court found that since existing plat restrictions prevented the land in question from being developed, the City needed nothing more than a public easement across the land to accomplish its goal of beach access. Accordingly, the court upheld the district court’s ruling denying the City’s request to transfer title of the beach parcel. However, in the interest of justice, the court also held that the City had paid for, and was entitled to, a permanent easement across the Chmielewskis’ beach property for the benefit of the public.

Chmielewski v City of St. Pete Beach, 890 F. 3d 942 (11th Cir. CA 5/16/2018)