The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the public has no right to roam a two-mile stretch of shoreline in Misquamicut and that property owners are entitled to restrict access to the beach with snow fencing and signs warning off trespassers.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the public has no right to roam a 2-plus-mile stretch of shoreline in Misquamicut and that property owners are within their bounds to restrict access to the beach with snow fencing and signs warning off trespassers.

The high court's ruling in a long-simmering, contentious dispute over access to a beach east of Misquamicut State Beach upheld a 2014 decision by Superior Court Judge Brian P. Stern.

Justice Gibert V. Indeglia wrote for the court that the five "intrepid," longtime South County property owners who created the Pleasant View beach colony in 1909 did not do so with the intent to dedicate the beach to the public.

"In gleaning [the landowners's] intent, the trial justice did not err in finding that the 1909 plat and indenture do not reveal manifest intent to dedicate the over-two-mile stretch of beach in Misquamicut to the public," Indeglia wrote, in a decision that delved into historic land records and public access laws.

William Landry, representing the defendants, said the ruling ensured the private property rights of hundreds of landowners, including restaurants and other commercial entities, along the 2½-mile oceanfront stretch, spanning from the Weekapaug breachway to just east of Misquamicut State Beach.

"It's an important validation of the private property status of some of the most valuable oceanfront real estate in Rhode Island," Landry said.

The state attorney general's office sued 20 landowners, including John Stellitano, on the public's behalf in 2012. Stern's ruling came after a lengthy and complex trial. At issue were southerly boundaries of individual lots, and whether they ran to the "beach," as the state argued, or to the Atlantic Ocean, meaning the mean high-water mark.

The case focused on whether the public, once it has gained access to the beach, could freely wander the beach above the mean high tide line. That's the boundary often used to define where private property begins and where some of the Misquamicut property owners had erected fences and signs warding beachgoers off.

Stellitano, one of the defendants, felt vindicated by the court. "I'm totally elated and delighted ... What we were trying to do was protect our property," said Stellitano, 94, a World War II veteran with long Westerly roots.

Had the court ruled otherwise, it would have transformed the area, he said. "It would have been a much different way of conducting life."

Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin said in a statement that the state initiated the lawsuit to end a long-standing dispute over the public’s right to use the Misquamicut beach line.

“Among all the things we hold dear as Rhode Islanders, unfettered access to our shoreline is among the highest. ... Although we are disappointed in the opinion, it was the right decision to bring the matter before the court to determine the intent of the original landowners more than 100 years ago," Kilmartin said. He added: “This case is unique to the beach area in question and in no way alters the long-held constitutional guarantee that everyone has access to the shore. Further, it restored and upheld rights of way to the ocean that had been called into question by the trial court.”

Save the Bay, the Surfrider Foundation, Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association, Clean Ocean Access and Friends of the Waterfront Inc. all weighed in in support of the state.

"Obviously, we're very disappointed. It leaves a lot of questions about where" the southern border of these lots ends, said Kendra Beaver, staff attorney at Save the Bay.

"It's a shame because publicly accessible property along the coast is dwindling. So much of it has been privatized," said Brian Wagner, of the Surfrider Foundation. "Any time there's a chance of making more available to the public, it's a fight we're willing to take."

— kmulvane@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7417

On Twitter: @kmulvane