Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association
471 A.2d 355 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public trust doctrine, which guarantees the public's right to use tidal lands for recreation, extends to the dry sand area of beaches owned by a quasi-public, non-profit association, requiring that association to provide access to the general public.
Facts:
- The Bay Head Improvement Association (Association), a non-profit corporation, was formed in 1910 to improve and beautify the Borough of Bay Head and operate its bathing beaches.
- The Association owns or holds long-term leases for nearly all the beachfront property along the entire 1.25-mile shoreline of the Borough of Bay Head.
- During the summer season, the Association employs lifeguards, beach cleaners, and police, and restricts access to the beaches it controls between 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
- Membership in the Association, which is required for beach access during restricted hours, is generally limited to residents of Bay Head.
- The Association charges membership fees to residents and allows them to purchase badges for their guests.
- The general public, who are not residents or guests of residents, are effectively barred from accessing the dry sand beach in Bay Head.
- The Association has a close relationship with the Borough of Bay Head, receiving historical benefits such as free office space, tax exemptions on some of its beach properties, inclusion in the borough's liability insurance, and direct appropriations of public funds.
- Virginia Matthews, a resident of the adjacent Borough of Point Pleasant, desired to use the beach at Bay Head but was unable to do so due to the Association's restrictive membership policy.
Procedural Posture:
- The Borough of Point Pleasant initially sued the Borough of Bay Head and the Bay Head Improvement Association in the state trial court.
- The claim against the Borough of Bay Head was dismissed, and Virginia Matthews (a Point Pleasant resident) and the Public Advocate joined as plaintiffs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the Association and individual property owners) on the public trust claims.
- The plaintiff (Public Advocate) appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divided opinion.
- The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, which granted certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public trust doctrine require a quasi-public association that owns or controls the dry sand beachfront along a municipality's entire shoreline to open its membership to the general public, thereby providing access to the dry sand for recreational purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Schreiber, J.
Yes. The public trust doctrine requires a quasi-public association that controls the dry sand beachfront to open its membership to the general public. The public's right to use the foreshore for recreational activities like swimming would be meaningless without reasonable access across the dry sand and a place to rest upon it. Because the Bay Head Improvement Association operates as a quasi-public entity—evidenced by its purpose, its relationship with the municipality, and its monopoly over the beachfront—it cannot exclude the general public in a manner contrary to the public good. Therefore, the Association must open its membership to residents and non-residents alike on a non-discriminatory basis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the public trust doctrine in New Jersey beyond municipally-owned land to encompass land controlled by a quasi-public entity that effectively monopolizes the beachfront. It establishes that private property rights are not absolute and must yield to the public's right to access unique natural resources when such access is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of lands held in the public trust. The case sets a powerful precedent for challenging exclusive control over shorelines and other trust resources, employing a flexible, fact-sensitive analysis rather than a rigid rule based on title ownership. This flexible approach signals that courts will look at the totality of the circumstances to prevent the frustration of public rights.
Unlock the full brief for Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association