In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that homeowners with property on Lake Michigan do not own the beach. The ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court in May 2022. Three property owners are now fighting back. They hope to have their case heard by the United States Supreme Court and the highest court in the land will decide who owns the beach.
The three properties sit between a state park and a national park. In 1980, the property owners granted a “walking easement” that allowed visitors to the parks to walk on their beach. However, the 2018 ruling allowed visitors to have parties, lounge on the beach, and otherwise disturb the property owners. The homeowners are now suing.
The property owners argue that the 2018 ruling is a “taking”—private property was taken for public use. As a result, the state must pay the property owners “just compensation.” The state, of course, disputes this claim, arguing that the beach has always been owned by “the public” because “the public” has historically used the beaches.
Use per se does not confer ownership. Ownership requires a particular kind of use—a use that transforms what nature provides into a human value.
When America was first being settled, the land was not the property of the government. It was an unowned resource which was open to all to use. Individuals have a moral right to use unowned resources to sustain their life, and others may not interfere with that use. But use alone does not create a property right.
A person who uses an unowned beach for an afternoon has a right to do so without interference from others. But his use is transitory. And he has done nothing to create a value. He simply used what nature has provided. However, if he builds a pier, a house, or some other value, he obtains a right to the value that he has created, as well as the land/beach necessary for him to use that value.
Morally, the homeowners are the rightful owners of the beach. Now, the question is: will the law recognize that right?