## Facts

- Charles D. Firster owned lakefront Lots 1c–4c in the Clifford Addition to the City of Eustis and had owned them since September 7, 1946; he acquired the property “sight unseen.”
- The lots were bounded on the west by Lake Eustis, and Firster’s title to the upland terminated at the mean high-water mark.
- Gottsche Avenue ran along the north side of Lot 1c and terminated at the shore of Lake Eustis.
- The City of Eustis maintained a city pier open to the public extending westerly from about the center line of Gottsche Avenue, perpendicular to the shore, and then turning at a right angle to extend southward.
- The City also maintained boathouses on the south side of the pier; the boathouse structures overlapped the extended south boundary line of Gottsche Avenue by about 9.6 feet.
- If Firster’s lot lines were projected into the lake, the boathouses and the southward extension of the pier overlapped those projected lines and somewhat impaired Firster’s view of the lake and, to a lesser extent, his access to the water.
- The pier and boathouses were originally built in 1921 and remained substantially the same for decades, aside from repairs or additions around 1953–1954; in 1954 the City constructed an additional boathouse.
- The City paid to maintain the structures and leased the boathouses to various individuals, none of whom were joined as parties in Firster’s suit.
- No structures were placed on Firster’s upland property itself.
- In 1956—about ten years after purchasing—Firster sued in equity seeking a mandatory injunction compelling the City to remove the pier, docks, and boathouses that interfered with his claimed riparian (littoral) rights, chiefly his right to an unobstructed view.
- The trial court entered a mandatory injunction ordering the City to remove the structures, and the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s pier and boathouses constituted an actionable interference with Firster’s littoral rights, including the right to an unobstructed view and reasonable access to Lake Eustis.
2. Whether, given the long existence of the structures, Firster’s purchase with the condition already in place, and his substantial delay in suing, equity should grant the extraordinary remedy of a mandatory injunction requiring removal.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District reversed the mandatory injunction entered against the City.
- The court treated the controversy as one about interference with littoral rights in adjacent waters, not a trespass on Firster’s upland, because his land ended at the mean high-water mark.
- While recognizing that Florida law treats an upland owner’s unobstructed view over adjoining waters as a protected incident of littoral ownership, the court held that, on these facts, mandatory removal was not an appropriate equitable remedy.
- The court relied on equitable considerations, including the long-standing, open, and publicly used nature of the pier and boathouses (built in 1921), Firster’s acquisition with the condition existing, and his delay of roughly a decade before seeking a mandatory injunction.
- The court also noted the boathouses were leased to individuals who were not parties to the suit, a circumstance that further weighed against compelling removal through a mandatory decree.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance of uplands bounded by navigable waters carries with it appurtenant riparian/littoral rights in the adjoining waters, even though title to the soil under the water does not pass with the upland.
- Littoral rights are legal rights derived from common law as modified by statute and include, in Florida, the upland owner’s right to an unobstructed view over adjoining waters, as recognized in prior Florida decisions.
- Mandatory injunctions ordering removal of structures are extraordinary equitable relief; even where a legal right exists, equity may deny mandatory relief when the circumstances make such relief unfair.
- Long delay, acquiescence, and related equitable doctrines may bar or limit mandatory injunctive relief, especially when the challenged condition was plainly visible, existed before the plaintiff purchased, and continued for many years without timely objection.
- In deciding whether to order dismantling of long-existing improvements, a court may consider the relative hardship and the effect on public use and third parties who have relied on the continued existence of the structures.

## Conclusion

City of Eustis v. Firster held that although a waterfront owner may have littoral rights that include an unobstructed view and access, equity will not necessarily order a city to remove long-standing, publicly used pier and boathouse structures when the owner bought with the condition already present and waited many years to seek the harsh remedy of a mandatory injunction.


City of Eustis v. Firster, 113 So. 2d 260 (1959)