Property Law - Dukeminier CH 1C PP
Property Law - Dukeminier CH 1C PP
Property Law - Dukeminier CH 1C PP
Chapter 1(C)
Constituting Ownership - The Bundle of Rights
The Public Trust Doctrine
Roadmap
• Ownership as a Bundle of Rights (and limits on those rights)
– Right to Exclude
• Jacque v. Steenberg Homes
• State v. Shack
– Right to Destroy
• Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust
– Right to Abandon
• Pocono Springs Civic Assn. v. MacKenzie
– Other sticks in bundle:
• Right to include, Right to use, Right to transfer
– Numerous other public policy limits on property owners’ rights –
examining one specific doctrine in these materials:
• The Public Trust Doctrine:
– Matthews v. BHIA
The Right to Exclude
Private Property Broad right to exclude (subject
to some limited exceptions)
Source: https://www.monmouth.edu/uci/documents/2018/10/beach-access-report.pdf/
Various approaches to how to provide access to
wet sand public trust area
• Expansive view of Public Trust Doctrine (NJ – Bay
Head/Raleigh Ave.)
– Public trust includes dry sand and wet sand area
• Customary Rights (TX, OR, HI)
– Customary rights exist in the public to use the dry sand area to
access wet sand area
• TX Beach Access: “In Texas, public access to Gulf Coast beaches is not
just the law, it is a constitutional right.”
• http://www.glo.texas.gov/coast/coastal-management/open-
beaches/index.html
• Public prescriptive easements (NC)
– Public has acquired a prescriptive easement (through longtime
use) across dry sand area to access wet sand area
Matthews v. BHIA
Street
Wet
Wet Sand Area
Dry
Dry Sand
Area (Public
Street
Ocean
Ocean
Sand area
(Public Trust)
area
BHIA (6 parcels)
Trust)
Private Home
Public Trust Doctrine
Source: https://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/access/public_access_handbook.pdf
Matthews v. BHIA
• Issues: Does the public have a right under the public trust doctrine to access the
tidal areas through upland dry sand areas owned/leased by a quasi-gov’t agency?
• Holding: Yes
– Previous cases held the public trust doctrine applied to dry sand areas owned by
municipalities and the public could engage in recreation activities on the dry sand, not just
passage across it.
– The court now extends this understanding of the public trust doctrine to dry sand areas
owned by quasi-gov’t agencies.
• Reasoning:
– Without such access, the public’s right in the tidal areas would be meaningless.
– The meaning and scope of the public trust doctrine is not fixed or static, but can evolved to
meet changing conditions of the public it was created to benefit.
• What about public access across privately-owned dry sand areas?
– Depends on circumstances; public must have reasonable access to tidal area; balancing test
to determine how much access private owner must provide:
• Location of dry sand in relation to foreshore
• Extent and availability of publicly-owned upland areas
• Nature and extent of public demand
• Usage of the upland dry sand area by owner
– See Note 1: Raleigh Ave Beach Assn v. Atlantis Beach Club