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 dismissed 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While the appeal was pending, the Florida legislature repealed Section 163.035 through Chapter 2025-178, Laws of Florida.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 First, when underlying statutory authority for a government action is repealed without a savings clause, judgments based on that statute may become nullities.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.