Court rules on beach access dispute

SANDPOINT — The Idaho Supreme Court is rejecting an appeal filed by Priest Lake landowners who argued a strip of beach was exclusively theirs.

The high court affirmed 1st District Judge Steve Verby’s ruling that the strip of beachfront property had been dedicated for use by all landowners in the Steamboat Bay subdivision, according to an opinion published on June 20.

The eight-lot subdivision on the east side of the lake was developed in 1966 by F.M. and Gladys Harker. The first lot that sold contained language in the deed indicating the adjacent beach, which is about 20 feet wide and 130 feet long, was for the benefit of everyone in the subdivision.

Tommy and Erin Dorsey bought that lot and a neighboring one in 1999. Neighbors Larry Brown, Alan Ross, and Michael and Nancy Murphy filed a complaint for quiet title in 2009, contending that the language on the subdivision’s plat drew beach ownership into question.

Prior to a 2011 bench trial, the neighboring landowners’ counsel, Sandpoint attorney Brent Featherston, successfully established that the Dorseys had no fee-simple interest in the beachfront property. Verby concluded at trial that despite the “inartful” language on the plat, it and the deed effected a private dedication that established an easement for the benefit of all landowners within the subdivision.

The Dorsey’s counsel, Sandpoint attorney John Finney, appealed, questioning whether Verby erred in concluding that the beach was excluded from his clients’ chain of title. The appeal also questioned whether the district court correctly concluded that the Harkers privately set aside the beach for all landowners at Steamboat Bay.

But Justice Jim Jones systematically affirmed the subject rulings issued by the lower court and held that a remaining series of arguments posed by Finney were not properly presented and were therefore not considered.

Chief Justice Roger Burdick concurred, as did justices Daniel Eismann, Warren Jones and Joel Horton, according to the 12-page opinion.

The Dorseys were not awarded attorney fees because they did not prevail on appeal. Although the neighboring landowners did prevail, the court declined to award them fees as well.

“Although the foundation of the Dorsey’s case was weak, because of the ambiguous language in the Plat, their case was not altogether without foundation,” Jim Jones wrote.