St. Petersburg dock owner sued by state over land has huge implications (Tampa: for sale, homeowners association)

[chi_tino]

SubLandPro, I remember the Connelly case. I was also looking for deals like this to purchase, but the political stakes are too high. Connelly received daily death threats and was told if he tried to put up his legally-allowed fence, he would be murdered. I'd rather take advantage of people in more subtle ways.

Unfortunately, it's not relevant here, since that underwater land was not on navigable waters.

Originally Posted by SubLandPro

Very interesting. When you say some docks are on 'deeded' (submerged) land, do you mean deeded to private ownership? It seems like you have looked into this, and that you know more than most on this issue. Can you possibly provide some parcel numbers as examples of privately owned submerged land, please?

Yes. For example, Garrison Channel in downtown Tampa (Hillsborough County) has submerged land under private ownership. It is a property in which I was involved in a negotiation. One party wanted to build more docks and lease them to another party. The two sides could not come to an agreement because of some legal ramifications regarding access to the property.

FOLIO:1987550100
PIN NUMBER:A-19-29-19-ZZZ-000005-93900.0
OWNER 1:GARRISON HARBOURSIDE LLC

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by chi_tino

SubLandPro, I remember the Connelly case. I was also looking for deals like this to purchase, but the political stakes are too high. Connelly received daily death threats and was told if he tried to put up his legally-allowed fence, he would be murdered.

I'm surprised no one DID bump him off. This clod was all over the news years ago. POS is nothing but a vulture and made a lot of lives miserable, but unfortunately vermin like him thrive in Florida.

[chi_tino]

If you purchase property without doing your due diligence and a property survey, you get what you deserve.

[vaughanwilliams]

Get what you deserve? Give me a break. I've never heard of property being sold that didn't have a survey, title search or a search for liens yet slime balls like Connelly keep scratching until they find some technicality that was missed by the title company and swoop in like pus starved flies.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by SubLandPro

This begs the question; "Would you rather find out your dock is on 'state owned' 'sovereign' 'navigable' submerged land, or privately owned submerged land, that is owned by someone else?

It raises the question not begs it. Begging the question is a logical fallacy similar to a circular argument.

http://begthequestion.info/

[SubLandPro]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

It raises the question not begs it. Begging the question is a logical fallacy similar to a circular argument.

Beg The Question // Get it right.

Interesting distinction. You may very well be correct. I may have misused the phrase.

Any other constructive criticism?

[SubLandPro]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

Get what you deserve? Give me a break. I've never heard of property being sold that didn't have a survey, title search or a search for liens yet slime balls like Connelly keep scratching until they find some technicality that was missed by the title company and swoop in like pus starved flies.

I am going to have to cautiously agree with chi_tino on this one. How is what Connolly did different from what the state of Florida is doing now, with the suit against Rick Ware? Is the state of Florida a POS, too? I can easily admit that the approach Connolly took was bad business. But, in the end, he had something that someone else wanted. Someone who wanted it was making threats to kill him. I have an easier time calling a murder, or someone who was making terroristic threats a POS than some who found a needle in a haystack, bought it legally, and wanted to sell it for a huge profit.

Please remember, Connolly is not the only person in recent history that has done this. Mr. and Mrs. Modica owned submerged land, with other peoples' docks on it, and sold the people the submerged land. Are they both a POS, too?

Okay, a couple questions for vaughnwilliams, please;

If you owned some submerge land that was worth a LOT to some relatively wealthy people, would you just give it to them for free?

What would be, in your opinion, the kindest, most gentle way, to make a fair profit on your submerged land?

I have a feeling that these cases of submerged land ownership will start cropping up more, and more often. Once (if) the state wins their suit against Rick Ware, that may 'awaken' owners of other submerged parcels.
Once a couple other private owners of submerged land successfully venture to sell their submerged land, this could easily become as routine as any other type of real estate business.

Each time any county, city, or other municipality issues a dock permit for the construction of a dock, without taking some time to do at least a cursory check regarding the ownership of the submerged land, they are doing a disservice to themselves, the citizens of the municipality, and the individual who wants the dock. Case(s) in point; State of Florida vs. Rick Ware, Don Connolly, Mr. Modica.

How many articles have to be written about this before it becomes more 'mainstream', and 'savvy' to find valuable submerged land, buy it, find it's highest and best use, and sell it for a good profit?


PREDICTION: Municipalities in Florida will start checking into ownership, navigability, and riparian rights before issuing dock permits. This may involve consultation with the DEP, and a title search.

ADVICE: Buy some submerged land while it is still 'taboo'. Oh, and by the way, while it is still CHEAP.

[vaughanwilliams]

There has been more than one instance of a property owner with a river, stream, creek on his property that decides it would be prudent for him to restrict travel through his property by putting some kind of barrier across the headwaters of the river. Whether it's for privacy reasons or he thinks he can start charging tolls, I don't know. As far as I know, the state has successfully argued that the property owner can't restrict travel on navigable waterways, and I'm good with that and think that was the original intent of the law.

The idea that a homeowner owns the dock, the state owns the water below the dock and someone else owns the mud beneath the water beneath the dock is just too ridiculous to even argue about. It's like building a home and having a "speculator" own everything below the footer. Who knows? Maybe that is legal and just hasn't been tried yet.

[chi_tino]

Mr. Connolly's land was not navigable. As I recall (and this was a decade ago), the property developer or homeowner's association owned the land under the lake and neglected to pay the property taxes on it. Mr. Connelly bought the tax liens and/or bought the deed at a foreclosure sale, because NO ONE ELSE WANTED IT.

He then sought to enforce his legal property rights by restricting access to those who didn't want to pay for it.

If I found one of these opportunities, you bet I would try to capitalize on it. The weakness in his case was that he was trying to take advantage of too many people at once. It would be far easier to do this to, say, a waterfront condo association or marina that wouldn't get as much sympathy as an individual homeowner.

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

The idea that a homeowner owns the dock, the state owns the water below the dock and someone else owns the mud beneath the water beneath the dock is just too ridiculous to even argue about.

In these handfuls of cases, this is exactly what is happening, which is why the state is saying that their rights are sovereign to the person that owns the mud. I see the point of both sides -- the state needs to keep access to navigable waters (i.e., you can't block access to others trying to travel past your land) and individual owners may have been sold a deed (created by a government entity) decades or more ago.

In the Connelly case (and non-navigable waters), the state has no property rights. If you have a pond on your property, the state cannot seize it.

[SubLandPro]

So, a question is 'if someone digs, or dredges, a canal, can they restrict access through the canal?' I am not sure there is a simple, definitive answer to this question. I am pretty sure case law, and individual circumstances would determine the answer. In the below case, the appellant court seems to have sided with the owner of the submerged land, and allowed said owner to restrict access;


534 So.2d 875 (1988)
John M. PICCIOLO, Defender Yacht Corporation and Atlantic Aeromarine Associates, Inc., Appellants,
v.
Cleveland JONES, Jr., Caroline Jones, Frank Jones, Joyce Jones and Jones Boat Yard, Inc., Appellees.

Conolly owned the lake bed, and surrounding property you are referring to, and he also owned some docks, and salt water submerged land. I have not done a check to see if the submerged land, upon which, the docks were constructed was navigable. That is certainly a great question, though.