Also known as:trust doctrines · public trust doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal principle under which a state holds title to navigable waterways and tidelands in trust for the benefit of the public. The doctrine imposes a fiduciary obligation on the state to manage those resources for public uses such as navigation, fishing, and recreation. Private agreements cannot convert these public rights into servitudes that run with the land.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Recorded Littoral Privilege Excluded
The Coastal Museum owned property bordering a tidal inlet designated for public use. It executed a recorded document granting Warren a perpetual private dock privilege across submerged land for his gallery's commercial shipments. Warren sold the gallery to Gina, who continued the use. The museum asserted that the privilege remained subject to public rights and could not be enforced as a private interest. The court held that the littoral access right fell outside servitude doctrine because it originated under the public trust doctrine.
Wetland Fill Permit Denied
Tobias Thomas owned shoreland property containing wetlands adjacent to a navigable lake. He applied for a permit to fill the wetlands for residential development. The county denied the permit to preserve the natural filtration function that protected lake water quality. Thomas sued, claiming the denial constituted a taking. The court upheld the denial, reasoning that the state held the lake and connected wetlands in trust for the public and had a duty to prevent pollution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Just v. Marinette County201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 1972)
Constructive Trust Imposed on Slayer
Talia Torres murdered her uncle and stood to inherit his estate under his will. The probate court refused to allow her to take the property. Instead, the court imposed a constructive trust directing the estate assets to the uncle's other heirs. The trust prevented Torres from retaining any benefit from her criminal act while still recognizing that title had passed by operation of law.
Mahoney, In re Estate of220 A.2d 475 (Vt. 1966)
Beach Access Condition Challenged
True North Logistics owned a beachfront parcel and sought a permit to build a larger home. The coastal commission granted the permit only on condition that the owner dedicate a public access easement across the property to the tidelands. The owner sued, arguing the condition amounted to an uncompensated taking. The Court held that the commission could not require the easement without showing a direct nexus to the proposed development's impact on public access rights protected by the public trust doctrine.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does the public trust doctrine apply only to tidal waters?+
No. The doctrine applies to navigable waterways and tidelands in most states. It guarantees public rights to use those areas for navigation, fishing, and recreation even after the state transfers title to private owners.
Supporting sources
Can private parties create servitudes that override public trust rights?+
No. The Restatement expressly excludes public-trust and littoral rights from the definition of servitudes. Private agreements attempting to convert those rights into running interests are ineffective.
Supporting sources
What happens when a trust becomes too small to administer economically?+
A court may modify or terminate the trust or replace the trustee when the value of the trust property is insufficient to justify administration costs. The court must protect the interests of nonconsenting beneficiaries when ordering relief.
Supporting sources
483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987)Property
…dissent. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting. I do not understand the Court's opinion in this case to implicate in any way the public-trust doctrine. The Court certainly had no reason to address the issue, for the Court of Appeal of California did not rest its decision on Art. X, § 4, of the California Constitution. Nor did the parties…