Background
Jack Kessler and Alexander and Alla Ayzen own neighboring townhomes in Aventura along the Intercoastal Waterway, with Kessler’s property directly north of the Ayzens’. In 2020, the Ayzens applied for a Class I permit to construct a marginal dock (approximately 5 feet wide and 21 feet long) with a 20,000-pound capacity boatlift behind their home. The Miami-Dade Division of Environmental Resources Management, the County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all recommended approval. The homeowners’ association also consented to the construction.
Kessler objected, noting that the dock would partially obstruct his view of the Intercoastal by 32 degrees on one side. The Board of County Commissioners approved the permit 11-0. After exhausting certiorari remedies challenging the permit itself, Kessler filed a declaratory judgment action against the Ayzens, claiming the dock and boatlift violated his riparian rights to an unobstructed view. The Ayzens moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it, citing Hayes v. Bowman and finding that the dock did not “substantially and materially” interfere with Kessler’s view.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed, establishing the proper framework for balancing competing riparian rights. The court explained that riparian owners hold special easement rights including the right of access, use, and an unobstructed view of the water—rights rooted in English common law and enshrined in Florida’s Constitution and statutes. However, these rights are not absolute and must be exercised in relation to one another without injuring neighbors’ lawful rights.
Critically, the court held that the right to an unobstructed view means a “direct, unobstructed view” of the water in front of one’s own property, not an unobstructed view in all directions to the exclusion of others’ rights. The Ayzens’ right to access and use the water (affirmative easements) and Kessler’s right to view (negative easement) must be balanced. The court found that the Ayzens’ proposed marginal dock, situated directly in front of their property, is a reasonable and lawful exercise of their riparian rights and does not injure Kessler’s direct, unobstructed view of the water. Although the structure obstructed his view by 32 degrees from one side, Kessler retained a direct, unobstructed view of the water in front of his property.
The court rejected Kessler’s argument that the trial court applied the wrong test. While the trial court referenced the “substantially and materially” standard from constitutional takings cases, the appellate court found this not to be error, as the trial court also properly analyzed whether the Ayzens’ dock injured Kessler’s rights. No reasonable jury could find that the marginal dock violates Kessler’s riparian rights.
Key Takeaways
- Riparian rights, while specially protected, must be exercised in reasonable relation to neighbors’ riparian rights and cannot be used to injure others in their lawful rights.
- The riparian right to an unobstructed view does not guarantee an unobstructed view in all directions, only a direct, unobstructed view of the water in front of one’s property.
- A neighbor’s reasonable dock construction that partially obstructs the view from certain angles does not violate the riparian right to view if the upland owner retains a direct view of the water.
- Upland property owners may construct marginal docks in accordance with regulatory approval and riparian law, provided the structure does not unreasonably restrict adjacent owners’ riparian rights.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of Florida’s riparian right to an unobstructed view, which has been a source of waterfront disputes. The court’s framework—distinguishing between absolute obstruction and partial obstruction from certain angles—provides practical guidance for resolving conflicts between waterfront neighbors. For Aventura and other Florida waterfront communities, the ruling establishes that regulatory approval of docks does not automatically adjudicate competing riparian claims, but once built, a dock on one property does not violate a neighbor’s view rights unless it completely obstructs the neighbor’s direct line of sight to the water.
The decision also reinforces that riparian easements are balanced rights subject to the principle that no owner may exercise their rights to injure others’ lawful interests. This limiting principle prevents any single riparian right from operating as an absolute veto over neighbors’ development.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.