Sandy Beach, LLC, vs. Waves For All Foundation

Student's Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Sandy Beach, LLC, vs. Waves For All Foundation
This case involves public access to private property that links the former to a public beach. The case has undergone various proceedings with different outcomes. The ultimate decision is awaited from the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
The case involves Sandy Beach, a privately owned property by the Griffins. The parcel of land and the properties therein borders the Big Blue Ocean, sheltered from the south and north by cliffs stretched out into the ocean, creating a cove. The land's physical geography makes it precious and beautiful. However, the coves can only be accessed via Sandy Beach as the state has never leased or purchased the right for public access. Previously, Sandy Beach was owned by the Tullys, who opened it to the public at a fee.
Moreover, the Tullys had erected a billboard advertising their services and that the beach was open to the public. The latter was allowed to use the parking lot and social amenities (convenience store and restrooms) that the Tullys had installed and maintained, except those who engaged in illegal or disruptive activities and behavior. Previously, the fee paid to Tullys was $2 but had significantly increased to $10 as time went by.
In the 2000s, the Tullys began operating their business at a loss prompting them to sell the property to the Griffins in 2008. After the purchase, the Griffins kept the beach open to the public but painted over the billboard until they decided what to do with the property. They established a Limited Liability Corporation, hence the name Sandy Beach LLC. With time, the Griffins began to encounter the problem their predecessors had. That is, the cost of maintaining the premise, keeping the parking lot, maintaining social amenities, and the store in safe and operable conditions exceeded the revenues generated by the public. Like the Tullys did during every winter session, the Griffins temporarily closed the beach and denied access to the public until the weather improved. However, this action was not received well by Mulweed County, which issued an information warning letter. The letter indicated that the latter had failed to inform the County of any changes. Additionally, the County, with the help of the Sunnystate Coastal Commission, enforced the Sunnystate Coastal Act.
Consequently, the County requested a schedule of when (days and hours) Griffins would open up the beach to the public and how this schedule would differ from the Tullys' historical arrangement. Griffins explained that they intended to maintain the exact amount and type of access as historically provided by their predecessors. Additionally, the County inquired why the Griffins had painted over the billboard without a CDP. They responded that they had not yet decided what to write on it and had no idea that painting required a permit.
In 2009, Griffins then sued the County and the Coastal Commission. However, the court dismissed the case. The former had neither provided the County and Commission with the relevant information nor applied for a CDP in case of any changes. In response, Griffins failed to open the beach for public access and did not apply for the Coastal Development Permit. In 2013, Waves For All Foundation, a non-profit organization advocating for the enjoyment and protection of oceans globally, filed a case against Griffins in a State-court. However, the case was dismissed for being immature. On this note, Griffins permanently closed the beach with a 'no access' sign, hired security guards to patrol the property, and painted over the billboard.
Upon suing the Griffins at the County Superior Court, the latter held that the Griffins had to open their gates for the public to access the beach until they acquired a development permit. Griffins argued that this decision constituted forceful taking (due to lack of an easement or compensation) as per the Fifth Amendment and violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. The Sunnystate Supreme Court's refusal to review the case resulted in Griffin's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Case Analysis
Majority Opinion
Sandy Beach is and has always been owned privately. In Friends of Sandy Beach v. Sandy Beach, LLC (2016), the Court of Appeal affirmed that Sandy Beach is private property. Therefore, the public lacks a legal right to access it. Comparatively, in Friends of Sandy Beach, Case No. CIV517634 (2018), the court held that the fact that the public had to pay a fee to access the coves via the Sandy Beach road located in Sandy Beach, LLC, does not mean that the latter is indebted to the public. Therefore, for the public to access the sandy beach, the court advised the County to utilize the Sunnystate legislation (enacted in 2014) via the Land Commission to negotiate with the Griffins for an easement or right-of-way or through the eminent domain doctrine if the negotiations proved futile. Since the Land Commission failed to do as instructed, Sandy Beach is still the private property of the Griffins.
An easement is a limited right to use another individual's land for a stated and specific purpose. In an easement appurtenant, the dominant tenement tends to benefit at the detriment of the servient tenement. This easement is often attached to the land and transferred to a new owner after selling it. In the case above, an easement appurtenant exists between Sandy Beach and the public. The public who benefits from accessing the cove via Sandy Beach Road is referred to as the dominant tenement.
In contrast, Griffins, who allows access to the cove via his property, is referred to as the servient tenement. Therefore, since ...