Paul Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach
890 F.3d 942
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- The Chmielewskis owned a beachfront residential lot and an adjacent ~300-foot "beach parcel" extending to the mean high water line; a 1925 plat allowed subdivision owners beach use but prohibited structures. The City had previously conceded the general public had no right to use Block M.
- From 2003–2005 the City renovated the neighboring Don Vista community center, cleared vegetation, posted prominent "Beach Access" signs, improved parking (including meters), removed gates/fencing, and publicized access from the Don Vista site to Block M.
- After the renovations the public frequently traversed and occupied the Chmielewskis’ beach parcel, using the sidewalk, dunes, and sand, bringing beach gear, attending events, and sometimes refusing to identify themselves as subdivision residents.
- The Chmielewskis repeatedly complained; the City declined to remove trespassers and removed the owners’ attempts to block access. The City also hosted and permitted public events and promoted Don Vista visitors’ use of Block M.
- The Chmielewskis sued under § 1983 (Fourth Amendment seizure) and Florida inverse condemnation (takings). A jury found for the Chmielewskis and awarded $1,489,700 on the takings claim. The district court denied the City’s post-trial motions. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s actions produced a physical taking (permanent physical occupation/easement) of the beach parcel | City’s conduct (signs, clearing, parking, events, refusing to remove trespassers) encouraged continuous public occupation, amounting to a taking | No taking as a matter of law; evidence insufficient to show a permanent, continuous occupation by the public | Affirmed: evidence supported a finding that City-authorized conduct created a permanent, continuous public right to pass (a de facto easement), a physical taking per Nollan/Loretto/Ark. Game & Fish framework |
| Whether a new trial was warranted because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence | Jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences | Verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and should be overturned or retried | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against great weight of evidence |
| Whether the City should receive fee simple title to the beach parcel in lieu of paying compensation | (implicitly) If City paid compensation it should obtain title to avoid a public windfall | The Chmielewskis retained fee title; City paid just compensation for the easement only | Reversed request for fee transfer: court held the taking was the creation of a permanent public easement, not transfer of fee; judgment must be amended to reflect a permanent easement for the public |
| Proper measure of compensation (fee vs. easement/severance) | Appraisal valued full parcel loss; award equaled full-appraiser valuation | City argued fee transfer needed if full value was awarded | Court treated award as compensation for an easement (before-and-after valuation); owner retains naked fee title while public has easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (temporary or recurrent government-induced physical invasions can be takings; takings inquiry is fact intensive)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical occupation by government or third parties is a per se taking because it invades the right to exclude)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (government cannot impose an easement granting a permanent and continuous right to pass without compensation; such imposition is a taking)
- Smith v. City of Tallahassee, 191 So. 2d 446 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966) (under Florida law, condemnation of an easement can require compensation equal to full value while naked fee remains with the owner)