AAR’s Legal Team monitors state and federal appellate courts to bring you takeaways from cases that could impact your business. Late fall 2025 has been a slower-than-average season for real estate related cases in the Alabama Appellate Courts. However, one case from the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals is significant for property owners’ rights, and a synopsis is included below.

11th Circuit 

One recent 11^th Circuit case, Lionel et al. v Walton County, involved landowners’ rights and the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. In April 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Walton County, Florida (which is part of the 11^th Circuit) enacted an ordinance that closed all beaches in Walton County. The issue with this ordinance is that it also barred private landowners from accessing beaches that were part of their property. When the private landowners attempted to access their private beaches, Walton County Sheriff’s deputies responded and threatened to arrest them if they didn’t vacate the beach – their own private property. Several property owners sued, arguing that the ordinance was an unconstitutional taking, but the federal District Court dismissed the suit. The property owners appealed.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court, calling the ordinance “a textbook physical taking.” The 5^th Amendment Takings Clause of the US Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for public use, unless the government provides just compensation. In this case, the county government did not take ownership of the beach property. Rather, it took the landowners’ right to “possess, use, and exclude” others from their properties, and gave those rights to the government. The US Supreme Court recognizes both physical takings and regulatory takings. A physical taking involves the government acquiring a property, whereas a regulatory taking can occur when the government imposes restrictions on the way a property may be used. In this case, the county ordinance barred property owners’ access to their property, which was enforced by agents for the county (sheriff’s deputies) entering the property. Because the county “physically appropriated” the land for its own use, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the ordinance to be a physical taking. The county raised several counter-arguments, none of which swayed the Court. As such, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court, with instructions for the District Court to determine the amount of compensation that the landowners were due.

Further Reading

The appellate courts have released a few opinions lately that relate to real estate, but hinge upon legal procedural issues or other issues outside the scope of this article. These cases can be viewed at the following links: The Terminix International Co, et al. v St. Paul’s Episcopal Church (Ala. 2025); Southampton 100, LLC v AL Dep’t of Revenue (Ala. 2025); Marmol and van Peborgh v Kalonymus Development Partners, LLC (11^th Cir. 2025).