T. Michael Glenn Trust v. Walton County, FL

11. T. Michael Glenn Trust v. Walton County, FL

Citation: 2026 WL 451818 (Fla. 1st DCA, Feb. 18, 2026), Nos. 1D2024-0682, 1D2024-0720, 1D2024-0748

Relevant Facts

  • In 2017, Walton County adopted an ordinance establishing the public’s customary use of dry sand beach areas.

  • In 2018, the legislature enacted section 163.035, Florida Statutes, establishing the procedure for governmental entities to claim recreational customary use on private property.

  • The County filed a complaint under section 163.035 and obtained summary judgment, leading to a February 2024 final judgment declaring customary use on remaining parcels, including those owned by petitioners.

  • While the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed section 163.035.

Whether the final judgment under the now-repealed section 163.035 remained valid and enforceable; whether certiorari was the appropriate remedy; and whether petitioners demonstrated substantial and immediate harm.

Positions of the Parties

Petitioners: Sought to quash the final judgment; claimed it created clouds on their title and uncertainty regarding trespass enforcement.

County: Suggested the repeal brought parties back to “square one” and claimed discretion to adopt a new ordinance under home rule power.

Decision of the Court

The petition for writ of certiorari was DISMISSED.

Reasons for the Decision

  • At oral argument, the parties conceded the final judgment is a nullity following statutory repeal.

  • When a statute upon which jurisdiction depends is repealed without a savings clause, jurisdiction falls even over pending causes.

  • The final judgment has no more legal effect, leaving no harm to be remedied.

  • Petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial and immediate harm; their asserted harm was abstract and hypothetical.

Need Legal Assistance in Puerto Rico?

Riefkohl Law provides experienced legal counsel across a wide range of practice areas. Explore our resources:

Call (787) 236-1657 or schedule a consultation to discuss your legal needs.

Previous
Previous

Gretchen Hyde v. Robert and Rochelle Oxarango

Next
Next

David Avigdor et al. v. Morton Avigdor et al.