Article Courtesy of The Herald-Tribune

By Michael Pollik

Published October 26, 2015

If a Sarasota couple prevails in two Sarasota Circuit Court cases, judges would be confirming their ownership of some of the most valuable submerged land in Florida — roughly three acres of navigable bay bottom in two swaths.

The watery deeds owned by Achim and Erika Ginsburg-Klemmt run up to the seawalls of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, the 888 condo, and the Sarasota Quay, which is now a blank slate in new hands.

On Wednesday, a judge heard closing arguments in one of the two cases, in which the city of Sarasota and Sarasota County are both suing the couple, saying they have no right to ownership of a small but important portion of the land that now is used as a drainage ditch by the city and county. This 130-by-30-foot section is important because it provides access to the rest of a 1.4-acre, underwater tract, which in general is 880 feet long and 86 feet wide, stretching west from U.S. 41 between the Ritz and the Quay beyond the 888 condo building. The submerged property is wide enough for the couple's proposed use of mooring boats, plus providing passage for other boats entering and leaving this dredged inner harbor area. They have even obtained two permits from the state of Florida for a mooring field.

Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt stands atop a seawall where a nearby ditch empties into Sarasota Bay. Ginsberg-Klemmt and his wife say they own a section of property there, some submerged, that Sarasota city and county claim he does not own.

     
"We have every permit we need in place except from the city of Sarasota," said Achim Ginsburg-Klemmt.

The county, which handles storm drainage for the city, has long used the east end of this parcel as a storm-water drainage ditch. Although the county and city could obtain the piece they want through the legal process of eminent domain, they have chosen instead to try to ask the court to rule that the couple's tax deed never included this small section.

Both the city attorney, Michael A. Connolly, and the county's, David M. Pearce, told the Herald-Tribune they agree that the couple owns the rest of the underwater parcel. They only dispute ownership of the piece that connects it to the land.

Both sides point to different surveys conducted over the decades that the property has been changing hands, back to 1965, when Karl Bickel, who retired to Sarasota after running United Press, died and his estate deeded some of the land to New College Inc.

But the only recent survey in which actual measurements of the property were made was completed by the Ginsberg-Klemmts after they obtained the parcel through a county tax deed sale in 2010 for $8,000. Their surveyor, John A. Poppell of Tallahassee, found the brass monument that marks the southern corner of the parcel, on a small bridge next to a pizza parlor north of the Ritz. He started his measurements from that point.

Since acquiring the property, the Ginberg-Klemmts have kept the tax payments current and insured the parcel. They used Poppell's survey plus their own architectural drawings to obtain the two permits from the state for their proposed nine-boat mooring field.

Four boats would be moored on the north side of the channel, roughly in front of the 888 condo building. The other five would be on a second parcel the couple obtained, along the south side of the channel, in water that fronts the Ritz, the Residences at the Ritz and the Lawrence Pointe condominium.

Another parcel, another lawsuit

That second parcel is the subject of another lawsuit being heard separately in circuit court. It was filed against the couple by Lawrence Pointe Condominium Association. That suit also pits the couple against SLAB LLC, which controls the neighboring Ritz-Carlton property, adjacent to Lawrence Pointe.

Connolly told Circuit Court Judge Rochelle Curley that she did not need to decide whether the couple owns the 130-by-30-foot segment under dispute with the local governments, but simply that they do not own it.

That position was “not only disingenuous, it's ludicrous,” said the couple's attorney, Steven Chase, arguing that the plaintiffs could not have it both ways. In effect, they were trying to tell the judge she could only rule that the couple does not own the drainage ditch property, but could not ascertain that they do own it.

Curley concluded the four-day trial by asking both sides to submit proposed orders by about Oct. 30.

No date was set for her ruling.