The beach access path at the end of 78th Street on the Gulf of Mexico in Holmes Beach will remain closed for now.
12th Circuit Judge Charles Sniffen ruled Aug. 26 to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction to reopen the path.
The dispute began in April when Travis Resmondo, owner of property at 99, 100 and 101 78th St., posted private property signs at the path — which begins on his vacant lot at 99 78th St. and continues onto Michael Fronk and Oceana Condominium Association’s vacant lot at 98 78th St. — giving notice that trespassers would be prosecuted.
Soon after, additional signs, ropes bollards and plants blocked the worn pathway to the beach from the street-end.
Several residents protested the path’s closure and contended that, at least before 2014, deeds for the property included a 10-foot-wide “non-exclusive walkway easement” which provides public access to the path.
Some called for the city to act on the matter, and several property owners erected signs along the street reading, “Save the beach access.”
However, city attorney Erica Augello recommended leaving it up to private property owners to resolve the issue since the now-missing easement lacked a listed beneficiary, which could lead a judge to consider it ambiguous.
Meanwhile, Linda Carmon, owner of 103 and 105 78th St., 107 78th Street Investments LLC, owner of 107 78th St., and Minh Vu, owner of 202 78th St., filed a lawsuit in May against Resmondo, OCA and Fronk.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the now-missing easement entitles public access to the path, as well as an order directing the defendants to restore access to the path by removing the barriers and signs.
The plaintiffs filed for a temporary injunction in June and the parties first met in Sniffen’s court Aug. 19 to discuss the motion.
At the Aug. 19 hearing, opening arguments were presented and the plaintiffs presented nine witnesses, including several Holmes Beach residents who spoke about the historically public use of the path.
Two of the plaintiffs’ witnesses spoke about medical conditions that impact their ability to walk to the beach.
Other witnesses testified that the path’s closure had impacted them financially by eliminating the nearest path to the beach, a primary attraction for renters.
At the Aug. 26 hearing, the plaintiffs presented another two witnesses before the defendants’ witnesses took the stand.
The defendants’ witnesses included Resmondo and several OCA property owners, who testified the path had been closed due to recently increased use, which had resulted in littering, trespassing and other issues.
Resmondo said he closed the path April 19 after more than 150 people used the path during the Easter weekend. He said people using the path sometimes left trash or trespassed onto his property to use his outdoor shower, where a used diaper was once found.
Resmondo said more people began using the path after the city of Holmes Beach implemented roadside parking restrictions. He said he noticed more people getting off at the island trolley stop at the end of the street to take the path to the beach.
Whalen Strobhar, owner of an OCA condo at 102 78th St., said he’d lived there for 30 years, and over the past year and a half, the increased use of the path had prevented him from enjoying it.
He said there had been additional traffic and parking on the street, sometimes blocking driveways, and litter on the path, which he called “disheartening.”
The parties then presented closing arguments.
Attorney Fred Moore of the Blalock Walters law firm, representing the plaintiffs, argued testimony had proven the path has been used by the public for more than 70 years before its closure.
He said there was enough proof, including a 1986 deed for the property that includes an easement for the path, that a prescriptive easement exists.
Moore added that the path’s closure caused irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and other nearby residents, as well as the general public. He said the closure negatively impacted their quality-of-life experience, financially damaged vacation rental properties on the street and forced people with physical limitations to find another path to the beach.
Attorney John Goldsmith of Tampa-based Trenam Law firm, representing Resmondo, and attorney Robert Lincoln, representing OCA, argued the plaintiffs had not done enough to prove irreparable harm — one of four requirements for a temporary injunction.
Goldsmith said additional walking did not constitute irreparable harm and money could adequately compensate any damages presented by witnesses. He also called the 1986 deed “unenforceable on its face.”
Lincoln said the plaintiffs failed to prove a substantial likelihood of their case’s success on the merits at trial — another of the four elements for a temporary injunction — and said the beach remains accessible via other routes.
They asked Sniffen to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction.
Sniffen said the testimony had convinced him of the path’s historically public usage, but ruled to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction — which he said is “generally disfavored” legally — since they did not prove certain elements.
He said he was unsure if the plaintiffs proved their claims of irreparable harm since money could resolve many of the stated issues. He also said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at trial.
There were no upcoming events scheduled for the case as of Aug. 26.