A T
2011-12-16 23:01:13 UTC
Scenario:
Canal dredged in the 40's or 50's (not naturally submerged).
House on the canal built in 1957. (single family home)
The developer was the owner of record of the property that was
dredged to become the canal.
The son of the developer sold the submerged land (the canal) to a
third party in the late 1990's or the early 2000's.
Now, docks sit on the canal which is owned by someone else.
The question posed here is regarding riparian rights, or possibly
littoral rights.
The following question is asked for the purpose of using, and having
exclusive of the docks, as well as leaving existing docks in place and
constructing and improving new docks; Do rights as a riparian owner
trump any private property ownership rights that the owner of the
submerged land, the canal might have?
=====
I asked this question of a "Real Estate investment" person, and this
was part of their answer after they apparently did considerable
research on similar scenarios;
This is written to take a look at the issue of peoples docks that are
located on submerged land that is owned by an independent third party.
The focus of this is Pinellas County.
This summarizes a number of examples and is not meant to be fully
comprehensive. After finding these examples, one would wonder how many
more similar situations exist in Pinellas County. If you are aware of
any, or find any, please reply to this post with details.
The most publicized transactions occurred when Pinellas County sold
the submerged real estate adjacent to 61 waterfront homes to a buyer
named Don Connelly for a price of $2000.Depending which source you
rely on, this sale to Mr. Connelly happened in either November 2001,
or February 2002.
A number of months after Connelly purchased the submerged parcel he
put a price of $100,000 per dock on the property. He requested that
the neighboring residents, who thought the docks to be theirs, stop
using the docks and said he would fence the docks off if they did not
respect his rights as owner of the land on which the docks were
constructed.
Lawyers got involved. Reportedly, a suit was filed which accused of
being "unfair" and accused the County of failing to follow proper
procedures. No criminal charges were filed against Connelly relating
to the purchase or sale of this real estate. Pinellas County started
telling the waterfront residents that before they could modify their
docks, they needed to ask for permission from Connelly. The affected
waterfront residents and the lawyers who represented them quickly
started making offers to buy the property. Connelly accepted an offer
of $18,000. The money was paid by a married couple, Geoff and Tammy
Apthorp. They are one of the families who wanted to use one of the
docks on what was Connelly's property. The dock they wanted to use was
directly behind their own recently purchased home.
Now, the new owners of the submerged property seemed to share
similarities with the unpopular individual they had just purchased the
property from. They, purportedly with help from lawyers, wrote letters
to their neighbors demanding equal reimbursement from each neighbor
for their respective submerged land and dock. No reports surfaced
regarding how many neighbors eventually "chipped in" their fair share,
if there were any that refused to do so, or if any that refused to pay
were ever denied access to their docks.
By many accounts, Connelly seemed to be regarded as schemer, as a
rogue speculator. There are facts, however, that seem to be difficult
to dispute. Connelly owned the property. Even the affected residents
came to believe and realize that what he did was legal. Connelly
wanted to sell the land for an arguably very large profit. Putting
emotions, personalities, etc. aside, this happens every day in every
way, in every nook and cranny of the USA.
=====
What happens when an entity that owns submerged land approaches the
sale differently, and is perceived to be "professional" and "proper"?
A company called Bayesplanade.com LLC, by looking at public records,
seems to have had considerable real estate holdings on the valuable
barrier island called Clearwater Beach. It appears that a significant
portion of their real assets on the beach has been, and still is,
submerged land. While this LLC is still the owner of record for large
tracts of submerged land, they have sold off some such parcels as
well. Parcel 05-29-15-00000-320-0100 is one such parcel. It is
adjacent to a small hotel on Clearwater Beach, and has a dock
constructed on it. This parcel was sold to Jake Enterprises at a price
of $18,000. No lawsuits, no news coverage, just a deal between two
real estate owners on 9/19/2007. Bayesplanade.com LLC also sold what
used to be parcel 05-29-15-00000-340-0100 to the contiguous upland
property owner. Like in each of the prior examples, there was a dock
already on the property. The price was $5900 on 5/4/2007.
If success is measured either by the most money, the amount of
property sold, or by the most buyers of underwater property, the most
successful and prolific sellers of submerged land, and actual docks in
recent history seem to be John and Nancy Modica. Mr. and Mrs. Modica
sold parcel 05-29-15-54756-077-0060 to Boca Ciega Dock Owners, Inc for
$60,000. This parcel is contiguous to a condominium development, and
once again, already had a dock on it at the time it was sold.
Apparently, the buyer of the submerged parcel and the dock was already
using the dock at the time the purchase was made. Reportedly, they
wanted to make improvements to the dock. They were told that before
they could obtain a permit to improve the dock, they had to have the
approval and/or the participation of the owner of the dock and the
parcel on which the dock was constructed. This issue of permitting for
dock improvement seems to be similar to what transpired in the case of
Don Connelly.
The Modicas appear to have sold at least 2 or 3 dozen more submerged
parcels to respective contiguous upland property owners as well. For
each of the below examples, I have included an Official Record book
and page number so that these transactions may be easily verified and
further researched;
Adjacent Upland Addr Price Sale Date OR BK/PAGE
6904 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,500 6/1/1998 10115/0752
7092 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/21/1998 10211/1317
7088 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/25/1998 10215/0085
7056 S SHORE DR $2,500 10/26/1998 10281/1135
7112 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/9/1999 10472/2160
7072 SOUTH SHORE DR S $2,500 4/14/1999 10478/2515
7040 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/13/2000 10877/1370
7050 S SHORE DR SOUTH $2,500 6/1/2000 10929/1685
7068 S SHORE DR SOUTH $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1043
7064 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1048
7020 SOUTH SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1053
7172 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0919
7168 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0922
7164 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0925
7132 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0927
7008 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1062
7004 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1067
6900 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1071
6948 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1081
6956 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1084
6984 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1088
6996 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1091
7000 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102
7160 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102
7148 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1105
7144 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1108
The above three aforementioned sellers seem to have done very well on
the investments they made in submerged land.
Canal dredged in the 40's or 50's (not naturally submerged).
House on the canal built in 1957. (single family home)
The developer was the owner of record of the property that was
dredged to become the canal.
The son of the developer sold the submerged land (the canal) to a
third party in the late 1990's or the early 2000's.
Now, docks sit on the canal which is owned by someone else.
The question posed here is regarding riparian rights, or possibly
littoral rights.
The following question is asked for the purpose of using, and having
exclusive of the docks, as well as leaving existing docks in place and
constructing and improving new docks; Do rights as a riparian owner
trump any private property ownership rights that the owner of the
submerged land, the canal might have?
=====
I asked this question of a "Real Estate investment" person, and this
was part of their answer after they apparently did considerable
research on similar scenarios;
This is written to take a look at the issue of peoples docks that are
located on submerged land that is owned by an independent third party.
The focus of this is Pinellas County.
This summarizes a number of examples and is not meant to be fully
comprehensive. After finding these examples, one would wonder how many
more similar situations exist in Pinellas County. If you are aware of
any, or find any, please reply to this post with details.
The most publicized transactions occurred when Pinellas County sold
the submerged real estate adjacent to 61 waterfront homes to a buyer
named Don Connelly for a price of $2000.Depending which source you
rely on, this sale to Mr. Connelly happened in either November 2001,
or February 2002.
A number of months after Connelly purchased the submerged parcel he
put a price of $100,000 per dock on the property. He requested that
the neighboring residents, who thought the docks to be theirs, stop
using the docks and said he would fence the docks off if they did not
respect his rights as owner of the land on which the docks were
constructed.
Lawyers got involved. Reportedly, a suit was filed which accused of
being "unfair" and accused the County of failing to follow proper
procedures. No criminal charges were filed against Connelly relating
to the purchase or sale of this real estate. Pinellas County started
telling the waterfront residents that before they could modify their
docks, they needed to ask for permission from Connelly. The affected
waterfront residents and the lawyers who represented them quickly
started making offers to buy the property. Connelly accepted an offer
of $18,000. The money was paid by a married couple, Geoff and Tammy
Apthorp. They are one of the families who wanted to use one of the
docks on what was Connelly's property. The dock they wanted to use was
directly behind their own recently purchased home.
Now, the new owners of the submerged property seemed to share
similarities with the unpopular individual they had just purchased the
property from. They, purportedly with help from lawyers, wrote letters
to their neighbors demanding equal reimbursement from each neighbor
for their respective submerged land and dock. No reports surfaced
regarding how many neighbors eventually "chipped in" their fair share,
if there were any that refused to do so, or if any that refused to pay
were ever denied access to their docks.
By many accounts, Connelly seemed to be regarded as schemer, as a
rogue speculator. There are facts, however, that seem to be difficult
to dispute. Connelly owned the property. Even the affected residents
came to believe and realize that what he did was legal. Connelly
wanted to sell the land for an arguably very large profit. Putting
emotions, personalities, etc. aside, this happens every day in every
way, in every nook and cranny of the USA.
=====
What happens when an entity that owns submerged land approaches the
sale differently, and is perceived to be "professional" and "proper"?
A company called Bayesplanade.com LLC, by looking at public records,
seems to have had considerable real estate holdings on the valuable
barrier island called Clearwater Beach. It appears that a significant
portion of their real assets on the beach has been, and still is,
submerged land. While this LLC is still the owner of record for large
tracts of submerged land, they have sold off some such parcels as
well. Parcel 05-29-15-00000-320-0100 is one such parcel. It is
adjacent to a small hotel on Clearwater Beach, and has a dock
constructed on it. This parcel was sold to Jake Enterprises at a price
of $18,000. No lawsuits, no news coverage, just a deal between two
real estate owners on 9/19/2007. Bayesplanade.com LLC also sold what
used to be parcel 05-29-15-00000-340-0100 to the contiguous upland
property owner. Like in each of the prior examples, there was a dock
already on the property. The price was $5900 on 5/4/2007.
If success is measured either by the most money, the amount of
property sold, or by the most buyers of underwater property, the most
successful and prolific sellers of submerged land, and actual docks in
recent history seem to be John and Nancy Modica. Mr. and Mrs. Modica
sold parcel 05-29-15-54756-077-0060 to Boca Ciega Dock Owners, Inc for
$60,000. This parcel is contiguous to a condominium development, and
once again, already had a dock on it at the time it was sold.
Apparently, the buyer of the submerged parcel and the dock was already
using the dock at the time the purchase was made. Reportedly, they
wanted to make improvements to the dock. They were told that before
they could obtain a permit to improve the dock, they had to have the
approval and/or the participation of the owner of the dock and the
parcel on which the dock was constructed. This issue of permitting for
dock improvement seems to be similar to what transpired in the case of
Don Connelly.
The Modicas appear to have sold at least 2 or 3 dozen more submerged
parcels to respective contiguous upland property owners as well. For
each of the below examples, I have included an Official Record book
and page number so that these transactions may be easily verified and
further researched;
Adjacent Upland Addr Price Sale Date OR BK/PAGE
6904 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,500 6/1/1998 10115/0752
7092 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/21/1998 10211/1317
7088 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/25/1998 10215/0085
7056 S SHORE DR $2,500 10/26/1998 10281/1135
7112 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/9/1999 10472/2160
7072 SOUTH SHORE DR S $2,500 4/14/1999 10478/2515
7040 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/13/2000 10877/1370
7050 S SHORE DR SOUTH $2,500 6/1/2000 10929/1685
7068 S SHORE DR SOUTH $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1043
7064 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1048
7020 SOUTH SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1053
7172 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0919
7168 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0922
7164 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0925
7132 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0927
7008 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1062
7004 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1067
6900 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1071
6948 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1081
6956 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1084
6984 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1088
6996 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1091
7000 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102
7160 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102
7148 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1105
7144 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1108
The above three aforementioned sellers seem to have done very well on
the investments they made in submerged land.