The Common Law Dedication of Martin's Beach

Beach life and California pretty much go hand-in-hand. With a coast as long as the Golden State's, access to a number of these sandy strips of bikinis, beers, and boards are not super hard to find. However, uncovering hidden beaches off the beaten path is something of a rite of passage for native Californians looking to escape from the tourist hot spots.

Martin's Beach used to be one of these secluded spots that only those "in-the-know" would visit. For decades, the owners of the land (the Deeney’s) leading to Martin's Beach allowed the public to use their private road to enjoy what has been called a "mystical and multi-faceted playground." Signs were put up by the owners on the nearby highway alerting drivers to the pristine locale. The owners of the land were even kind enough to set up public restrooms and a concession shop for these beach goers.

This all changed in 2008 when the land was sold to Sun Microsystems millionaire Vinod Khosla. A couple months after the land transfer signs for the beach were taken down, the access road from the highway to the beach was closed off, and the evil beachGrinch ruin summer for all.

To the surprise of none, surfers were really the first ones to get pissed. Martin's Beach has an epic break (brah!) and a little gate wasn't going to stop these boarders from catching some gnarly tubes. But then the law got involved. 

Friends Don’t Let Friends Give Up
The owners of the property leading into Martin’s Beach ended up being sued in two different law suits. One by the Surfrider Foundation and the other by a group named Friend’s of Martin Beach. While the Surfrider Foundation went to trial and was decided in their favor, the Friend’s of Martin Beach (Friends) suit still thrives on. Thanks, in large part, to a decision made by the First Appellate District of the California Appeals Courts. 

In this case, Friends alleged four theories in which injunctive and declaratory relief should be granted. In short, the theories revolved around 1) a public trust theory, 2) a constitutional theory, a common law dedication theory, and 4) an ancient custom theory. Although the Friends lost three of these four arguments, the one they won allows this case to live yet another day (or in the case of our legal system, a year).  

Deciding the Existence of a Common Law Dedication
In a 3-0 ruling, the California Court of Appeals concluded that Friends alleged sufficient facts to establish a common law dedication claim. The elements of common law dedication are an offer or intent to dedicate and an acceptance. The court believed that there is “little doubt” that the Friends facts could establish a common law dedication if true, and therefore, summary judgment was improper by the trial court.

Friends allege that the original owners of Martin’s Beach offered access to the beach to the public and intended to do so when they put up signs for the road and added a parking lot to their land for the public to use.  By using this road and parking lot, the public accepted this offer and the common law dedication was complete. Since after acceptance, the dedicator cannot revoke, even if the property changes hands, Friends have a pretty strong argument if they can muster enough evidence for the upcoming trial. 

Martin’s Beach LLC argues that since the original owners charged a fee for people to use the road and parking lot that a license, not a common law dedication, was created. The court failed to concur with this argument, mainly because there was very little evidence that this fee was collected every time someone came to the beach. A trial court will now have to decide if a Common Law Dedication was created by the Deeney’s offer and the public’s acceptance. But even if a jury decides this issue in the Friends’ favor, the battle for access to this beach is probably far from over.