Those fighting to reopen a beach access are trying a new angle after an early setback.
Plaintiffs Linda Carmon and 107 78th Street Investments LLC filed a newly amended complaint in February against defendants Travis Resmondo, Michael Fronk and Oceana Condominium Association regarding the closed beach path at the end of 78th Street in Holmes Beach.
The dispute began in April 2022 when Resmondo, owner of property at 99, 100 and 101 78th St., posted signs and put in plants, ropes and bollards blocking the path and claiming it as private property.
The path begins on Resmondo’s vacant lot at 99 78th St. and continues onto Fronk’s and Oceana’s vacant lot at 98 78th St.
Several residents protested the path’s closure, citing its historic public use and contending that, at least before 2014, deeds for the property included a 10-foot-wide “non-exclusive walkway easement” that allowed public access.
Many property owners on and around 78th Street erected signs reading, “Save the beach access.”
Some called for the city to get involved but city attorney Erica Augello advised commissioners against the city’s participation since the now-missing easement lacked a listed beneficiary, which could lead a judge to consider it ambiguous language.
That left 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., to file a lawsuit to reopen the path in May 2022.
Their lawsuit called for a court order to declare the now-missing easement exists at the property and entitles public access to the path, as well as an order directing defendants to restore access to the path by removing barriers and disruptive signage.
The plaintiffs also filed for a temporary injunction to reopen the path, which Judge Charles Sniffen of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court ruled in August 2022 to deny.
Sniffen said the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of irreparable harm due to the path’s closure or show they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at trial.
Following the decision, Vu dismissed her claims without prejudice last November.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs expanded their lawsuit with an amended complaint last November that added counts for declaratory judgment regarding dedication, customary use and express easement.
The amended complaint also included revisions to count 1, which sought a declaratory judgment as to whether a private or public prescriptive easement exists that would entitle public access to the path.
The newly amended complaint, filed Feb. 9, changed count 1 to seek declaratory judgment for the existence of an implied easement instead of a prescriptive easement.
A prescriptive easement is established with a continuous and open use of property adverse to its owner for a period of 20 or more years.
The latest amendment also includes new underlying facts about the development of Holmes Beach and intentions for lots 98 and 99.
The amended complaint will be discussed at a 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 4, hearing at the Manatee County Judicial Center, 1051 Manatee Ave. W., Bradenton.