109 So. 3d 154
Ala.2012Background
- This appeal concerns riparian boundaries and pier permits on three coterminous Mobile Bay lots near Point Clear, Alabama.
- Spottswoods bought the middle lot in 2005, began replacing the preexisting Demouy pier, and faced boundary disputes with neighbors Reimers and Schramm.
- A 2007 circuit-court judgment set upland and riparian boundaries, allowed the Spottswoods to build a pier but not beyond a footprint linked to the Demouy pier, and retained jurisdiction for future boundary issues.
- On review, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the boundary ruling but reversed the footprint restriction, holding that the Spottswoods could build a pier outside the Demouy footprint subject to permissible navigational limits.
- In 2010–2011, the Reimers sought permits for a rebuilt pier; Spottswoods challenged DCNR’s 10-foot setback rule application, which DCNR approved for Spottswoods’ pier in 2011, despite the setback rule.
- Schramm challenged DCNR’s permit decision as arbitrary and capricious, raising threshold questions about the 10-foot setback, the common-law right to wharf out, and the trial court’s boundary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCNR reasonably approved Spottswoods’ pier despite the 10-foot setback. | Schramm argues no enumerated exception allowed waiver of the setback. | Spottswoods contend Rule 22(M-.09(4)(c)(l) and common-law rights justify waiver. | Yes; DCNR’s waiver grounded in Rule 22(M-.09(4)(c)(l) and common-law riparian rights; decision not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether the Spottswoods have a common-law right to wharf out to navigable water. | Schramm disputes existence of a general common-law right. | Spottswoods rely on Cove Properties recognizing a right to reach navigable depth. | Recognized; Spottswoods may wharf out to navigable depth under the common-law right. |
| Whether enforcing the setback would unreasonably infringe riparian rights and justify DCNR’s exception. | Enforcement would not infringe; no basis to override. | Setback waiver preserves navigable access consistent with neighboring piers. | DCNR could waive setback while preserving riparian rights; decision reasonable. |
| Whether the trial court correctly denied the motion to alter, amend, or vacate its boundary judgment. | Spottswoods sought relitigation of settled boundary issues. | No new issues; law of the case bars relitigation. | Affirmed; no permissible relitigation. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for DCNR’s administrative decision? | Decision should be arbitrary or capricious if not in compliance with law. | Agency decisions reviewed for arbitrariness, caprice, or legal compliance. | Agency decision affirmed; standard as in Ex parte City of Fairhope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cove Properties, Inc. v. Walter Trent Marina, Inc., 796 So.2d 322 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (recognizes common-law right to wharf out to navigable water; supports riparian rights emphasis)
- Ex parte City of Fairhope, 739 So.2d 35 (Ala.1999) (sets limited standard of review for agency decisions: arbitrary or capricious or not in compliance with law)
- Wehby v. Turpin, 710 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1998) (cites support for riparian rights framework in Alabama)
- Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (principle cited re: navigable water and wharf right limits)
- Great American Ins. Co. v. Tugs “Cissi Reinauer”, 933 F. Supp. 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (federal perspective on navigable-water rights)