Bradley Geise and Sarah Geise v. Peter Fleck and Kari Fleck

Summary

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for Peter and Kari Fleck in a dispute over whether their dock and boathouse unreasonably interfered with Bradley and Sarah Geise’s riparian rights on Lake Down. The court held that the trial court properly applied a reasonableness standard rather than equitably allocating specific areas of riparian rights over sovereign submerged lands. The court also discussed declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, riparian rights, sovereign submerged lands, and the public trust doctrine.

Holdings

1. Hayes's equitable-distribution test does not apply to a dispute between adjacent riparian owners using a lake comprised of sovereign submerged land when neither party seeks to fill or drain the submerged land and no statute grants a right to equitable distribution beyond the parties' private-property boundaries.
2. The applicable test is whether one riparian rights holder's use of the lake unreasonably interferes with another riparian rights holder's use.
3. The Flecks' dock and boathouse did not unreasonably interfere with the Geises' riparian rights to access and view Lake Down.
4. The trial court properly denied the Geises' request for declaratory relief.
5. The Geises were not entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring modification of the Flecks' dock and boathouse.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hayes v. Bowman required the trial court to equitably apportion, by metes and bounds, the parties' riparian rights over sovereign submerged land.
2. What legal test governs a dispute between adjacent riparian owners concerning use of a navigable lake with a publicly owned lakebed when neither party seeks to fill or drain sovereign submerged land and no applicable statute grants a right to equitable distribution.
3. Whether the Geises were entitled to declaratory and mandatory injunctive relief based on alleged interference with their rights to access and view the lake.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying declaratory and injunctive relief.
5. Whether the decision should be certified as being in direct conflict with Brown v. Thomas.

Disposition

affirmed