Residents Say Acre of Beach at Point Dume Is All Theirs

Two months ago, Malibu resident Glenn Harvey took his dog, Hannah, to Point Dume State Beach, sat on the sand and waited for county beach officers to arrive.

When they did, they gave Harvey exactly what he wanted--a ticket for having a dog on the beach and a day in court to argue that the particular stretch of sand where he had been sitting belongs to him and about 200 other Point Dume property owners, not the state.

“I figured it was the cheapest way to get into court,” he said.

Harvey said he and his neighbors do not want to spend a lot of money fighting for something they just found out is rightfully theirs: an acre of beach set aside for their private enjoyment by the point’s original owner, the Adamson Cos.

Failed to Gain Title

As he researched the title policy to a lot he recently bought on Point Dume, Harvey discovered that when the state was condemning beach property in the mid-1960s to build the park, they somehow failed to gain title to Lot 23, a 260-foot stretch of beach near Splash restaurant.

The Adamson Cos. gave the rights to the lot to property owners in Rivieras 4 and 5, two subdivisions on the point, for use as a private beach. Los Angeles County tax rolls still list the Adamson Cos. as the owner of Lot 23.

“For 20 years, everyone thought the state owned the (lot),” Harvey said. “Somebody’s been pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes for a long time.”

Now, the residents want it back.

Harvey, owner of Malibu Heating and Refrigeration Co., said residents would like to fence off the property and build bungalows and barbecue pits on it.

But reclaiming the land from the state has proved difficult.

Forced to Pay

A parking booth sits on the lot and the attendants there have been ordered to make Harvey and his neighbors pay $4, just like everyone else, according to Paul Adema, a supervisor for AMPCO Parking.

Dan Bertonneau, a retired Los Angeles City firefighter who is helping Harvey organize the property owners, said he tried unsuccessfully to get arrested by county sheriff’s deputies in protest.

The county, which runs the beach for the state, has declared neutrality on the ownership issue.

“Our position is that the state’s got to settle it,” said Eric Bourdon, assistant director of the Department of Beaches and Harbors. “They should get together with these property owners and settle the problem. We really don’t care one way or the other.”

The state will wait for the property owners to take action, according to Allen Ulm, deputy regional director for the state park system.

“The state is not going to take any action,” Ulm said. “(The property owners) are going to have to go to the (state) Coastal Commission.”

Ulm said he agrees that the state does not own the disputed property. But because the public has been using the beach with the landowner’s knowledge for more than five years, he said that under California law the homeowners may have lost their rights to use it as a private beach.

Jamee Jordan Patterson, state deputy attorney general, said the law Ulm is referring to is a California legal doctrine known as “implied dedication.”

The doctrine, Patterson said, holds that “when the public has used a piece of private property continuously in excess of five years, the public acquires implied rights to that property.”

The owner would not be entitled to compensation for that property, she added.

A defense to implied dedication would be for the landowner to register a claim of title with the county recorder, Patterson said. This gives the landowner control over public use of the property.

Harvey said that in 1971, the Adamson Cos. filed a revocable public-access permit with the county recorder that prevents the state from claiming the property under implied dedication.

Adamson Cos. is investigating the dispute and has no comment, said Al Edgerton, director of legal services.

Edgerton, however, confirmed that Adamson does own the property and has paid taxes for it yearly.

Harvey said if the state does not want to part with Lot 23, he and his neighbors would be glad to sell it for $5 million so they can buy rights to another beach.

The hearing for Harvey’s beach citation has been set for Aug. 6.