RI judge sides with beachfront homeowner in court fight. What does it mean for public beach access?

A Superior Court judge has issued an initial decision siding with a beachfront homeowner who argued that Rhode Island’s 2023 shoreline access law amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter denied the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of Stilts, LLC, which is owned by David Welch of South Kingstown. A final opinion is expected in the coming weeks, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Welch in court.

More: Rhode Island’s beaches are public. Here’s a quick guide to what you can and can’t do.

What the decision says

In 2023, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a law establishing that the public has the right to use the shoreline up to 10 feet landward of the recognizable high tide line, also known as the “wrack line.”

Welch sued the state in October, noting that the four parcels of land on Charlestown Beach that belong to Stilts, LLC have varying deeds indicating that he owns out to the “high water mark,” “Atlantic Ocean,” “high water line,” and “mean high water mark.”

The Rhode Island Attorney General’s office filed a motion to dismiss Stilts, LLC’s lawsuit, which was converted into a motion for summary judgment.

After hearing arguments on both sides, Taft-Carter issued a decision on Friday saying that the 2023 law was “clearly” a taking of private property.

Taft-Carter noted that a controversial Rhode Island Supreme Court case, State v. Ibbison, defined the boundary between public and private at the mean high tide line, which is scientifically calculated and invisible to the eye.

The 2023 law “reset” the division between public and private, and “extended the point of public access over the plaintiff’s private property,” she wrote.

Breaking down the ruling

Taft-Carter agreed to dismiss one count of Stilts, LLC’s lawsuit, which argued that the shoreline access law translated to an unreasonable seizure of private property and violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

But she rejected the state’s attempt to dismiss the other two counts, which alleged that the law was an unconstitutional taking that violates the Fifth Amendment, and that it amounted to inverse condemnation.

The decision does not spell out how Stilts, LLC, should be compensated, or what happens next.

“Our clients are gratified that the court agreed with what they have said from the start—the beach access law violates their rights,” Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney J. David Breemer said in a statement. “As the court recognized, the beach access law infringed on our client’s property rights by moving the existing public beach boundary line ten feet landward, effectively confiscating our client’s property, which is an unconstitutional taking.” 

The foundation described the decision as “a major victory for those who own coastal property.”

The Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Coastal property owners previously filed a lawsuit challenging the shoreline access law in federal court, but that suit was dismissed in September.