How to access the above link?
MARVIN FABRIKANT and wife, PATRICIA A. FABRIKANT, ARTHUR C.
SMITH, III, and MPF INVESTMENT CO., L.P., and ARTHUR C. SMITH,
III, TRUSTEE, ARTHUR C. SMITH III REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiffs, v.
CURRITUCK COUNTY, a North Carolina body politic and corporate,
COROLLA ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership, WHALEHEAD
ASSOCIATES, a Virginia limited partnership, H I S WHALEHEAD, a
Virginia limited partnership, GERALD J. FRIEDMAN, WHALEHEAD
PROPERTIES, a Virginia joint venture, NANCY FRIEDMAN, ESTATE of
SAMUEL SANDLER, deceased, HARRY SANDLER, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION, DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT, and
DONNA D. MOFFITT, as Director of the Division of Coastal
Waiver of governmental immunity must be specifically alleged, but precise language is not necessary as long as sufficient allegations are present to provide a reasonable forecast of waiver. The determination is limited to the complaint and its attachments.
3. Immunity_governmental_action for injunction_trespass on beachfront land
Shingleton v. State, 260 N.C. 451, precluded plaintiffs' argument that sovereign immunity was waived by N.C.G.S. § 41-10.1 for a claim for an injunction restraining interference by the State with plaintiffs' exclusive use of beachfront property. Property owners cannot maintain an action against the State to restrain the commission of a tort where they cannot maintain the action in tort. Plaintiffs could have brought individual capacity claims against State officers, but did not.
4. Immunity_governmental_beachfront land_quiet title action--no claim of title
Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity under N.C.G.S. § 41-10.1 and their claim to quiet title to the dry sand area in front of beachfront property was properly dismissed.
5. Declaratory Judgments_pleadings_actual controversy required_only complaint considered
Jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment exists only when the complaint demonstrates an actual controversy. The answer and the course of multi-claim litigation are not considered.
6. Declaratory Judgments_allegations_justiciable controversy
A declaratory judgment seeking an interpretation of the public trust doctrine as applied to dry sand beach areas was properly dismissed because plaintiffs did not allege a justiciable controversy. Plaintiffs alleged at most a statement by a single State official asserting a standard that he applied generally, but which has not been applied to plaintiffs' property.
7. Constitutional Law_taking of dry sand beach--underlying claims dismissed
Claims for an unconstitutional taking regarding the dry sand area of a beach were not addressed where the underlying claims to quiet title and declaratory relief were properly dismissed.
8. Appeal and Error_invited error_no supporting authority
Plaintiffs were not entitled to the stipulated dismissal of an amended takings claim rather than a dismissal on the merits where they gave the court the option of outright dismissal. Further, they cited no authority in support of their argument.
105. Members of the general public, on a
non-continuing and recurring basis, and mostly
during the tourist season, use the [access
areas] without authorization to trespass on
the private property of the Plaintiffs owning
beachfront lots and other beachfront lot
owners, particularly on the Dry Sand Areas of
such private property at which the pedestrian
Plaintiffs describe various negative conduct resulting from the
public's use of the dry sand beach in front of their homes,
including litter, noise, bonfires, relief of bodily functions,
requests for use of the bathroom and the telephone, and
unauthorized use of plaintiffs' outdoor showers.
Based on the above allegations, plaintiffs asserted 22 claims for relief, including claims for breach of the restrictive covenants, deeds, and contracts; fraud; unfair and deceptive trade practices; and various claims relating to the maintenance of dumpsters, streets, and water supply facilities. With respect to"the State defendants," the complaint included four claims for relief. Plaintiffs first sought a declaratory judgment that the State of North Carolina and/or the public have no rights as to the dry sand beach, which plaintiffs contend is under their private ownership. Second, plaintiffs asserted a cause of action to quiet title in the dry sand beach. Third, plaintiffs requested an injunction restraining the State defendants from "interfering with these Plaintiffs' exclusive use and enjoyment of their real property, specifically the Dry Sand Areas." In the event title to the dry sand beach was not found to reside in plaintiffs, plaintiffs alternatively alleged that such a ruling would constitute a "taking" entitling plaintiffs to compensation for the land itself and for the accompanying diminution in property values.
Plaintiffs subsequently obtained leave to amend their complaint to add a fifth claim against the State defendants asserting the unconstitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 77_20(d) & (e) (2003), two provisions adopted after the filing of the federal action that codify the "customary free use and enjoyment of the ocean beaches" enjoyed by the people of the State of North Carolina "from time immemorial." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77_20(d). In both the State defendants' answer to the original complaint and their answer to the amendment, they included motions to dismiss. On 28 April 1999, upon motion by DENR, the Division of Coastal Management, and the Coastal Resources Commission, the trial court dismissed the quiet title, injunctive relief, and taking claims of those plaintiffs who did not own oceanfront property. Further, the court ruled that "all claims for relief relating to ownership and use of the ocean beach, including the Eighth Claim for Relief alleging a judicial 'taking', are DISMISSED with respect to all Plaintiffs as to lands situated seaward of the mean high water or mean high tide line of the Atlantic Ocean. This order is entered without prejudice to the . . . Defendants [sic] right to offer the same or similar arguments in support of any future motions . . . ." Plaintiffs have not appealed this order.
On 24 July 2002, the State defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs' taking claim and their claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 77-20(d) and (e) are unconstitutional. On 9 September 2002, the State defendants also moved to dismiss the quiet title, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and the absence of a justiciable controversy.
The trial court entered two orders on 22 July 2003, one addressing each motion. At this point, because of voluntary dismissals, the only remaining plaintiffs were Marvin and PatriciaFabrikant and Arthur C. Smith, III. Two additional plaintiffs had been added: MPF Investment Co., L.P. and the Arthur C. Smith III Revocable Trust. The first order dismissed plaintiffs' quiet title, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief claims on the basis of sovereign immunity. The second order granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs' remaining two claims. Both orders included a certification from the trial court, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, stating: "There is no just cause for delay in the entry of a final judgment as to these claims." Plaintiffs appealed from both 22 July 2003 orders.
Clark, 117 N.C. App. at 88-89, 450 S.E.2d at 748. Based on Clark
and Gunter, we are limited to reviewing the complaint and its
attachments to determine whether plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to establish a waiver by the State defendants of sovereign
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41_10.1, upon which plaintiffs rely, provides:
Whenever the State of North Carolina or any agency or department thereof asserts a claim of title to land which has not been taken by condemnation and any individual, firm or corporation likewise asserts a claim of title to the said land, such individual, firm or corporation may bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the land lies against the State or such agency or department thereof for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to lands which have been condemned or taken for use as roads or for public buildings.
Plaintiffs contend that their complaint's allegations fall within the scope of this statute, thereby establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to their quiet title claim and their request for injunctive relief.
 With respect to injunctive relief, plaintiffs' arguments are foreclosed by Shingleton. Although in Shingleton, our Supreme Court ultimately held that the plaintiff could proceed with a quiettitle action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44-10.1, it specifically reversed the trial court's grant of injunctive relief: "The owner of property cannot maintain an action against the State or any agency of the State in tort for damages to property (except as provided by statute, G.S., Ch. 143, Art. 31). It follows that he cannot maintain an action against it to restrain the commission of a tort." Shingleton, 260 N.C. at 458, 133 S.E.2d at 188. The Court noted that the plaintiff was not without a remedy since he could sue the individual public officers:
When public officers whose duty it is to supervise and direct a State agency attempt or threaten to invade the property rights of a citizen in disregard of law, they are not relieved of responsibility by the immunity of the State from suit, even though they act or assume to act under the authority and pursuant to the directions of the State.
Id. The Court noted, however, that none of the officers were
parties to that action. Likewise, in this case, plaintiffs have
sued the Director of the Division of Coastal Management only in his
or her official capacity, which is simply a claim against the
State. See Mullis, 347 N.C. at 553-54, 495 S.E.2d at 725. We are
bound by Shingleton. Since plaintiffs have not brought any
individual capacity claims, Shingleton precludes their request for
injunctive relief.  With respect to the quiet title claim under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 41-10.1, we must decide whether plaintiffs' complaint
alleges that the State has asserted "a claim of title to land" with
respect to any property to which plaintiffs also claim title. It
is well established that a "[w]aiver of sovereign immunity may not
be lightly inferred and State statutes waiving this immunity, being
in derogation of the sovereign right to immunity, must be strictly
construed." Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522,
537_38, 299 S.E.2d 618, 627 (1983). In accordance with this
principle, our Supreme Court has specifically held that the courts
must "constru[e] N.C.G.S. § 41-10.1 strictly." State v. Taylor,
322 N.C. 433, 437, 368 S.E.2d 601, 603 (1988). The Court in Taylor
concluded, therefore, that "the phrase 'claim of title to land'
contained in N.C.G.S. § 41-10.1 cannot be broadened to include a
claim for betterments under N.C.G.S. § 1-340." Id.
In comparison, in Shingleton, 260 N.C. at 458-59, 133 S.E.2d at 188-89, the Supreme Court held that an action against the State under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-10.1 could proceed when it arose out of conflicting claims relating to a recorded easement. The Court generally defined the meaning of "claim of title to land," observing: "Every right to land is a title. If a person has the actual or constructive possession of property, or the right ofpossession, he has a title thereto, though another person may be the owner." Id. at 459, 133 S.E.2d at 189.
In Williams v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ., 266 N.C. 761, 764_66, 147 S.E.2d 381, 383_85 (1966), the Supreme Court further defined the scope of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-10.1. Although the plaintiffs and the State each claimed title to land on the basis of a recorded deed, the Court did not rest its holding that the plaintiffs could sue on that basis alone. Instead, the Court added:
As indicated above, it appears from the allegations of both plaintiffs and defendants that defendants do not assert they have condemned the property. Nor do defendants assert ownership by virtue of their right of eminent domain or other attribute of sovereignty. Defendants' claims to ownership are based solely on rights and defenses available to private litigants in like circumstances.
Id. at 764-65, 147 S.E.2d at 383. See also id. at 767, 147 S.E.2d
at 385 (in discussing the nature of the State defendants' defenses,
emphasizing that "the State and its agencies are asserting no
rights deriving from their governmental status").
In the present case, plaintiffs' allegations establish that they are not basing their claim for injunctive relief and their suit to quiet title upon any formal claim of title, as the plaintiffs were in Williams and Shingleton. Instead, in support of their contention that the State defendants have asserted a "claimof title to land," plaintiffs point only to allegations that members of the general public trespass over the dry sand areas and that the Schechter affidavit filed in the federal litigation, which plaintiffs attached to the complaint, stated that Schechter interpreted the public trust doctrine to allow public access to the dry sand beach.
Plaintiffs cite no authority suggesting that trespassing by members of the public constitutes a "claim of title to land" by the State. Thus, plaintiffs' contention that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44-10.1 applies rests solely on their allegations regarding the interpretation of the public trust doctrine contained in the Schechter affidavit.
The public trust doctrine is a common law principle providing that certain land associated with bodies of water is held in trust by the State for the benefit of the public. State ex rel. Rohrer v. Credle, 322 N.C. 522, 527-28, 369 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1988). As this Court has held, "public trust rights are 'those rights held in trust by the State for the use and benefit of the people of the State in common. . . . They include, but are not limited to, the right to navigate, swim, hunt, fish and enjoy all recreational activities in the watercourses of the State and the right to freely use and enjoy the State's ocean and estuarine beaches and public access to the beaches.'" Friends of Hatteras Island Nat'l HistoricMaritime Forest Land Trust for Pres., Inc. v. Coastal Res. Comm'n, 117 N.C. App. 556, 574, 452 S.E.2d 337, 348 (1995) (emphasis omitted) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-45.1 (1994)).
As such, the public trust doctrine cannot give rise to an assertion of ownership that would be available to any "private litigants in like circumstances." Williams, 266 N.C. at 765, 147 S.E.2d at 383. Any party, public or private, can assert title to land on the strength of a deed, but only the State, acting in its sovereign capacity, may assert rights in land by means of the public trust doctrine. See Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 110, 118, 574 S.E.2d 48, 54 (2002) (noting that "[t]he state is the sole party able to seek non- individualized, or public, remedies for alleged harm to" property covered by the public trust doctrine), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675, 577 S.E.2d 628 (2003). Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court has stated, the public trust doctrine "uniquely implicate[s] [a state's] sovereign interests." Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 284, 138 L. Ed. 2d 438, 457, 117 S. Ct. 2028, 2041 (1997). Since any reliance by the State upon the public trust doctrine would constitute an interest in the property based on an "attribute of sovereignty" and not based "solely on rights and defenses available to private litigants in likecircumstances," it cannot, under Williams, constitute a "claim of title in land" within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44-10.1.
Moreover, plaintiffs cite no authority to suggest that an informal assertion of an interest in property falls within N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44-10.1. While plaintiffs cite numerous cases construing the quiet title statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41_10, it is § 44-10.1 that constitutes the waiver of sovereign immunity and not § 44-10. The question is not whether plaintiffs have asserted a claim under § 44-10, but rather whether their allegations are sufficient to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity under § 44- 10.1.
A comparison of the two statutes, however, supports the State defendants' contention that plaintiffs' allegations do not set out a claim by the State of title to plaintiffs' land. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41_10 provides: "An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse claims . . . ." (Emphasis added.) The italicized language stands in contrast to the corresponding language in § 41_10.1: "Whenever the State of North Carolina or any agency or department thereof asserts a claim of title to land, . . . [an action may be brought] against the State . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Had the General Assembly intended in § 41-10.1 to waive the State's sovereign immunitywhenever the State asserted simply an "interest in real property," it knew how to say so. N.C. Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Mitchell, 323 N.C. 528, 538, 374 S.E.2d 844, 849 (1988) (in construing statute, noting "[t]here is no doubt that the legislature knows how to draft such language when it chooses to do so"). Since the General Assembly chose to limit the waiver to an assertion of a "claim of title to land," rather than use the broader "interest in real property," we must construe that language strictly and hold that a "claim of title to land" requires more than just an interest in real property. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17, 24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 300 (1983) ("We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.").
Thus, as to plaintiffs' contention that something less than a claim of title is sufficient to trigger the operation of the sovereign immunity waiver, "'[t]he short answer is that [the legislature] did not write the statute that way.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773, 60 L. Ed. 2d 624, 630, 99 S. Ct. 2077, 2082 (1979)). Since plaintiffs' complaint does not include allegations sufficient to establish that the State has asserted a claim of title to property owned by plaintiffs within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-10.1, plaintiffs havefailed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity. The trial court, therefore, properly dismissed plaintiffs' quiet title claim.
We hold that the trial court properly dismissed this claim because
plaintiffs have failed to set forth a justiciable controversy in
As this Court has recently recognized in a declaratory judgment action against the State, "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-253 provides that our courts 'shall have power to declare rights,status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.'" Nat'l Travel Servs., Inc. v. State, 153 N.C. App. 289, 291, 569 S.E.2d 667, 668 (2002) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-253 (2001)). This power is not unlimited: "In actions involving a request for a declaratory judgment, our Supreme Court 'has required that an actual controversy exist both at the time of the filing of the pleading and at the time of hearing.'" Id., 569 S.E.2d at 668-69 (quoting Sharpe v. Park Newspapers of Lumberton, Inc., 317 N.C. 579, 585, 347 S.E.2d 25, 30 (1986)). The requirement of an actual controversy between the parties "is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a proceeding under the Declaratory Judgment Act." Adams v. N.C. Dep't of Natural & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683, 703, 249 S.E.2d 402, 414 (1978).
Although our appellate courts have not specifically defined an "actual controversy," it is well established that "[a] mere difference of opinion between the parties" is not sufficient for purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Town of Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 205, 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942). This Court does not have authority "to give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used if and when occasion might arise." Id. at 204, 22 S.E.2d at 453. See also Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 117, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409 (1949) (observing that "[t]he Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act does notlicense litigants to fish in judicial ponds for legal advice"). An actual right of action is not necessary to establish an actual controversy, but "it is necessary that litigation appear unavoidable. Mere apprehension or the mere threat of an action or a suit is not enough." Gaston Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Harrison, 311 N.C. 230, 234, 316 S.E.2d 59, 62 (1984) (internal citations omitted).
In this case, plaintiffs' complaint contends that an actual controversy exists because of "the State defendants' interpretation of the public trust doctrine and the alleged rights of the general public" with respect to the dry sand beach, as set forth in the Schechter affidavit attached to the complaint. In that affidavit, Mr. Schecter, who was at that time Director of the Division of Coastal Management, stated that one of the duties of his office is the "implementation of the beach access policies of the [Coastal Resources Commission] and the Secretary of DENR, including application of the public trust doctrine to ocean beaches . . . ." Schechter explained that "[i]n the implementation of those policies," he "appl[ies] the following standards." He then described three zones of the beach and stated that "[t]he dry sand beach zone . . . can be privately owned, but is subject to public rights in the nature of an easement in favor of the general public for the use of the ocean beach." Plaintiffs also urge us to look at the State defendants' answer to their complaint and the course of the litigation. This Court has previously held, however, that "our courts have jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments only when the complaint demonstrates the existence of an actual controversy. To satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of an actual controversy, it must be shown in the complaint that litigation appears unavoidable." State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Water Serv., Inc., 149 N.C. App. 656, 658, 562 S.E.2d 60, 62 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Our review is, therefore, limited to determining whether the complaint established an actual controversy.
 The question then becomes whether the Schechter affidavit attached to the complaint is sufficient to meet that requirement. That affidavit sets forth only the standards Mr. Schechter personally applied. Neither it nor the complaint sets forth any rule or regulation adopted by the State defendants. Likewise, nothing in plaintiffs' complaint refers to any rule or regulation concerning the public's use of the dry sand beaches. Moreover, neither the affidavit nor the complaint indicate that Mr. Schechter or anyone else employed by the State has either (1) applied Mr. Schechter's standards to any of the plaintiffs' property or (2)taken any other concrete action asserting rights in the dry sand beach.
In cases involving comparable allegations, our courts have consistently concluded that no justiciable controversy existed. For example, in Barbour v. Little, 37 N.C. App. 686, 247 S.E.2d 252, disc. review denied, 295 N.C. 733, 248 S.E.2d 862 (1978), the plaintiffs owned property along the Eno River in Orange County. In support of their request for a declaratory judgment that statutes providing for acquisition of land for state parks were unconstitutional, the plaintiffs alleged that (1) the defendants had announced their intention to adopt a master plan for a proposed Eno River State Park, (2) the defendants had prepared several different plans for the park, each of which encompassed property owned by the plaintiffs, and (3) the defendants had stated that the park would be established pursuant to one of the already proposed plans. The Court pointed out that "[n]one of the plaintiffs in the present action has as yet been directly and adversely affected by any statute which they seek to challenge in the present action . . . ." Id. at 690-91, 247 S.E.2d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Court, "[a]ll that has occurred is that employees of the Division of Parks and Recreation in the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources have made initial alternative planning proposals for a State park whichcontemplate ultimate acquisition of certain lands of the plaintiffs for park purposes." Id. at 691, 247 S.E.2d at 255. The Court concluded that there was "[a] mere difference of opinion between the parties" that did not demonstrate the existence of a genuine controversy cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. See also Town of Tryon, 222 N.C. at 205, 22 S.E.2d at 453 ("A mere difference of opinion between the parties as to whether plaintiff has the right to purchase or condemn, or otherwise acquire the utilities of the defendant _ without any practical bearing on any contemplated action _ does not constitute a controversy within the meaning of the cited cases.").
Similarly, in Nichols v. Lake Toxaway Co., 98 N.C. App. 313, 390 S.E.2d 770, disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 141, 394 S.E.2d 178 (1990), the plaintiffs contended that a justiciable controversy existed as to the existence of a right of first refusal as to the plaintiffs' property when the defendant company mailed a letter to all property owners in a development stating that the defendant had a right of first refusal on all property within the development. This Court held, however: "This general letter, targeted at no one in particular and not alluding to any legal recourse that would be taken if the residents did not comply with the terms of their deeds, is not the makings of an 'actual controversy' ripe for declaratory judgment." Id. at 316, 390 S.E.2d at 772. In Adams, the plaintiffs based their claim of an actual controversy on the fact that the Coastal Resource Commission had designated their land as an "interim" area of environmental concern and as a "conservation area." 295 N.C. at 703, 249 S.E.2d at 414. According to the plaintiffs, these designations meant that applications for development permits would likely be denied in the future, thereby impairing the usefulness and value of their property. After noting that the Commission would have to engage in various further administrative proceedings before any permits could be denied and that plaintiffs had not yet, in any event, had occasion to seek development permits, variances, or exemptions, the Court held: "[T]here is no justiciable controversy . . . entitling plaintiffs to relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act." Id. at 705, 249 S.E.2d at 415.
We find plaintiffs' allegations immaterially different from those deemed insufficient in Barbour, Nichols, and Adams. Here, at most, plaintiffs have alleged a statement by a single State official asserting a standard that he himself applies generally, which has not, through any specific action, been applied to plaintiffs' particular property. Compare, e.g., Charlotte- Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. N.C. Indus. Comm'n, 336 N.C. 200, 213, 443 S.E.2d 716, 724 (1994) ("We do not require that the challenged regulation have taken effect, only that it have been enacted oradopted by the administrative agency. . . . Further, we require that plaintiffs be directly and adversely affected by the regulation."). In contrast to the above cases, the Schechter affidavit does not even threaten to take any action with respect to any specific parcel of land that plaintiffs own. Nor does it threaten any action should plaintiffs attempt to limit public access to the dry sand beach.
In short, at best, plaintiffs have asserted a difference of opinion between them and Mr. Schechter regarding the application of the public trust doctrine to the dry sand beach. Plaintiffs are asking us to render an opinion resolving the abstract issue whether the public trust doctrine gives rise to a public easement over the dry sand beaches of our State. In the absence of allegations in the complaint demonstrating an attempt by the State to enforce, with respect to plaintiffs, its alleged opinion regarding the dry sand beach, we do not have jurisdiction to do so. Neither did the superior court. The trial court, therefore, properly dismissed plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment.
Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***