Town of Windermere appeals court's boathouse decision

The legal battle continues. 

For three years, the town of Windermere has been in court asserting its contentious claim to centuries-old boathouses. 

Ninth Circuit Court Judge John E. Jordan signed an order in October in favor of the five titled owners of the boathouses. 

The town has appealed the decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeal after the final judgment was rendered Nov. 19. 

As of Friday, Dec. 5, the case is under consideration for mediation in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. 

"A decision will be made shortly whether to order mediation," the order states. "If mediation is ordered, the time for preparing the record will not begin to run until the mediation process is complete."

During a Windermere Town Council meeting Tuesday, Dec. 9, Doug Fay, one of the owners of the boathouses, came forward during public comment to question who decided to appeal the court's decision. 

Mayor Jim O'Brien said the council would not discuss any legal strategy, but council members directed staff to take steps to appeal the decision. 

Council members Tom Stroup and Brandi Haines both said there was not a vote by the council to move forward with an appeal, and the decision was not unanimous. 

"You would have to ask each person what their thoughts are on it, because you can't say that the council decided, because there was a lot of discussion, objection, so it was not the council that decided," Stroup said. 

Heather Ramos, the town's attorney, said council "wants nothing more than to get everything put behind them," but there are several "unanswered questions from the court."

The town already has spent $637,000 on the case.

A battle spanning decades

The five Palmer Park boathouses, built between 1910 and 1915 on West Third Avenue, provide access to Lake Butler and a space for boating, fishing and other water recreation. 

The original lease agreement between the town and the owners was signed in 1985, before being extended in 2001. The lease expired in 2021 and was again extended on a month-to-month basis until March 2022. 

The council then voted to terminate the leases, giving the boathouse owners 60 days to leave the structures. 

The legal battle began in July 2022, when the town filed five separate complaints. Those later were consolidated into the current case, after the boathouse owners refused to vacate. The complains were for eviction, breach of lease and ejectment. 

The town was required to prove ownership and right of possession of the boathouses. In the complaints, the town claimed to be the owners of the structures and therefore was entitled to evict or eject the users of the boathouses and take possession of them because "the town allegedly held riparian rights allowing it to restrict access to and from the boathouses."

The boathouse owners provided the town a settlement offer in July 2024, but the offer expired in August 2024, after 45 days, without response from the town. 

The matter continued in court.

The order Jordan signed Oct. 7, 2025, in favor of the boathouse owners declared the defendants as the owners of the boathouses, and the owners "cannot be evicted or ejected from the boathouses for which they own and have the right for possession."

The order also found the town did not have riparian rights claimed in the complaints. The finding was based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's determination that the boathouses do not sit on sovereign submerged land, which the town's claim to riparian rights was "completely dependent" on the lagoon being sovereign land. 

"Furthermore, the orders expressly found that the town has no right to ownership, control or possession of the boathouses or the land under them," a motion for entry of final judgement stated. 

A week later, the town sought leave to amend its complaint, seeking "new claims, new parties and completely new legal theories."

Jordan denied the motion for leave Nov. 13. 

"At argument on that notion, (the town of Windermere) seemed to concede that it did not own the lagoon underlying the boathouses that are at issue but wanted the court to determine who actually owned the lagoon, something it had never before been asked to determine," the order denying the town's motion for leave stated. "The court does not find it appropriate to allow plaintiff to use this case to assert broad-ranging claims that have nothing to do with its claims against these defendants. This case has been an extensive battle that has gone on long enough. Defendants are entitled to closure."

On Nov. 26, the town's attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal and now is under consideration for mediation.