Florida Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge to Beachfront Property Judgment After Legislative Repeal

T. Michael Glenn Trust v. Walton County, 2026 WL 451818 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 18, 2026)

The Florida First District Court of Appeal Court: Florida First District Court of Appeal
Date: February 18, 2026 — T. Michael Glenn Trust v. Walton County, 2026 WL 451818

Summary of Relevant Facts

In 2017, Walton County adopted an ordinance establishing customary recreational use rights on dry sand beaches within the county. In 2018, the Florida legislature enacted Section 163.035, Florida Statutes, which created a statutory framework enabling governmental entities to establish customary use of beaches through judicial proceedings. Walton County filed a complaint under this statute and ultimately obtained summary judgment. In February 2024, a final judgment declared customary recreational use on beachfront properties owned by the T. Michael Glenn Trust, Bruce Healy, and Lake Partners LLC. While the appeal was pending, the Florida legislature repealed Section 163.035 through Chapter 2025-178, eliminating the statutory foundation upon which the judgment rested.

Procedural Background

Walton County filed its complaint in 2018 under the newly enacted Section 163.035. The county obtained summary judgment, and in February 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment declaring customary use rights on the petitioners' beachfront properties. The property owners filed a certiorari petition challenging the judgment with the First District Court of Appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the legislature repealed the underlying statute.

Main Controversies

Two issues were before the court:

1. Whether the repeal of Section 163.035 rendered the underlying judgment a nullity, thereby mooting the appeal.

2. Whether the petitioners could still demonstrate the "substantial and immediate harm" required for certiorari jurisdiction despite the statutory repeal, based on their arguments that the judgment would cloud their property titles and potentially affect enforcement of trespass laws.

Position of the Parties

T. Michael Glenn Trust, Bruce Healy, and Lake Partners LLC (Petitioners): Argued that even after the statutory repeal, the existing final judgment continued to cause them harm. Specifically, they contended that the judgment created a cloud on their property titles and could affect the enforcement of trespass laws on their beachfront properties.

Walton County (Respondent): Argued that the legislative repeal of Section 163.035 eliminated the statutory basis for the judgment, effectively resolving the dispute and rendering the petitioners' claims moot.

Holding

Dismissed. The First District Court of Appeal dismissed the certiorari petition, finding that the legislative repeal rendered the judgment a nullity and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the substantial and immediate harm required for certiorari jurisdiction.

Reasons for the Decision

The court determined that the judgment became a nullity with no legal effect following the legislature's repeal of Section 163.035. Because the statute provided the sole legal basis for the county's action and the resulting judgment, its repeal eliminated the foundation upon which the judgment rested.

The court then addressed the petitioners' arguments that they continued to suffer harm. The petitioners raised two concerns: that the judgment could cloud their property titles and that it might affect enforcement of trespass laws. The court found both arguments hypothetical and speculative rather than constituting the "substantial and immediate harm" required for certiorari jurisdiction. The court noted that if lingering effects materialized, petitioners could potentially address them through other legal remedies, such as a quiet title action.

This case summary is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice. a certiorari petition challenging a final judgment that had declared customary recreational use rights on beachfront property held by trusts and other property owners. The per curiam opinion demonstrates how legislative repeal of an underlying statute can render a judgment a nullity and moot pending appellate proceedings.

Background

In 2017, Walton County adopted an ordinance establishing customary recreational use on dry sand areas of county beaches. In 2018, the Florida legislature enacted Section 163.035, Florida Statutes, providing a procedure for governmental entities to establish customary use through judicial proceedings. Walton County filed a complaint in 2018, won summary judgment, and obtained a final judgment in February 2024 declaring customary use on the petitioners’ beachfront parcels, including property held by the T. Michael Glenn Trust, Bruce Healy, and Lake Partners LLC.

While the appeal was pending, the Florida legislature repealed Section 163.035 through Chapter 2025-178, Laws of Florida. This repeal removed the statutory basis for the county’s customary use declaration.

The Court’s Analysis

The court found that with the statutory repeal, the final judgment became a nullity with no legal effect. The petitioners argued they were still harmed because: (1) the Sheriff might not enforce trespass laws based on the recorded judgment, and (2) the recorded judgment could cloud their title. The court found these concerns to be abstract and hypothetical rather than constituting the “substantial and immediate harm” required for certiorari jurisdiction.

The court emphasized that certiorari is an “extremely rare remedy” and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the kind of concrete, immediate injury necessary to invoke it.

Practical Implications

This case carries several lessons for trust and estate practitioners holding real property assets. First, when underlying statutory authority for a government action is repealed without a savings clause, judgments based on that statute may become nullities. Property owners and trustees should actively monitor legislative developments that could affect pending litigation involving trust-held real property. Second, abstract concerns about potential future harm, such as possible non-enforcement of trespass laws or theoretical title clouds, are insufficient to sustain appellate jurisdiction in Florida. Third, trustees holding beachfront or other property subject to government use claims should consider whether legislative advocacy may be more effective than litigation when the statutory framework is in flux. Finally, practitioners should consider whether a quiet title action or other affirmative relief may be appropriate to clear any lingering effects of a nullified judgment from the property records.