Imagine your elderly loved one relaxing quietly on the beach near the waters edge when a grown man approaches her with a power drill in hand. Now imagine her later hearing a knock at the door and being handed a Civil Summons notifying her that she is being sued by a millionaire boy-band celebrity.

That is the shocking reality for Carolyn Hill—a Walton County senior and lifelong beach lover. It is truly a modern David-and-Goliath story.

Florida Beaches for All is a non-profit 501(c)(4) founded in 2018 by a group of citizen volunteers concerned about the use of the dry sandy beaches in Walton County, Florida. Simply put, our mission is to peacefully preserve and perpetuate the doctrine of Customary Use of ALL BEACHES in Florida. As part of that mission, we have established this fundraiser to help Carolyn with her growing legal expenses. 100% of funds raised here are earmarked for Carolyn’s fight.

Carolyn is one of us. She is a hardworking local with a modest income and everyday bills to manage. Yet she now finds herself being sued by boy-band member Brian Littrell simply for using a constitutionally protected stretch of beach that belongs to every Floridian.

She needs help. Carolyn has already struggled to secure legal representation, and the fight ahead will not be easy. But let there be no doubt: this community stands with her. We refuse to be pushed aside by wealthy part-timers who appear to be using lawsuit after lawsuit to strip away our longstanding customary use of these beautiful beaches.

Together, we will stand up for Carolyn—and for our right to the coastline that belongs to all of us.

As the Supreme Court of Florida has so eloquently stated: "There is probably no custom more universal, more natural or more ancient ... than that of bathing in the salt waters of the ocean and the enjoyment of the wholesome recreation incident thereto. The lure of the ocean is universal; to battle with its refreshing breakers a delight. Many are they who have felt the lifegiving touch of its healing waters and its clear dustfree air. Appearing constantly to change, it remains ever essentially the same. …… We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part of Florida is more exclusively hers, nor more properly utilized by her people than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of, Florida's oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court."

Carolyn did not ask for this fight, but she is determined to win on behalf of all Floridians who flock to our beaches to enjoy the lure of the ocean on lands constitutionally protected and held in trust for the public.

Carolyn’s lawyers have already filed a motion to dismiss this case, that hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Dec 11. Please give what you can, no amount is too small, to help pay her legal fees which have already grown to 5-figures.

Please note that donations made to a 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible. A copy of the official registration and financial statements for Florida Beaches For All may be obtained from the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services at www.FDACS.gov . Registration does not imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by the State.

UPDATE: March 11, 2026

Carolyn is incredibly grateful for the outpour of support during this difficult time. Thank you for recognizing the difficult fight she has ahead in her defense, as the lawsuit against her continues

with the next defensive court filing due March 17, 2026. Legal costs continue to increase as Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Carolyn, continuing to claim that she has trespassed on the beach.

Here are some of the latest updates in Carolyn’s case and the Plaintiffs’ cases against the Developer, Dune Allean Beach, Inc., and Walton County Sheriff’s Office, beginning with the

hearing on December 11, 2025:

December 11, 2025: Hearing on Hill’s Motion to Dismiss

Approximately an hour before the hearing, attorneys for Plaintiff submitted a response in opposition to the court, far outside the seven-day deadline the court requires. The intimidation

tactic was quickly pointed out by Carolyn’s legal counsel, Heidi Mehaffey, during oral arguments. The court accepted the Plaintiff’s’ response, but allowed Carolyn’s legal team time to respond in writing by end of day December 15, 2025. This did result in additional fees for

Carolyn’s legal defense. At the hearing on Carolyn’s Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its count for stalking against her, as they recognized it was improperly brought before the court. As no time

had Carolyn been alleged to have approached Plaintiffs or entered onto their property aside from the claimed trespass on the beach by the Gulf shore. During oral arguments, it was made clear that Plaintiffs have a fundamental misunderstanding of the well-established public trust doctrine and relied upon beach furniture lined up in the sand as

boundary markers to attempt to eject Carolyn from the public areas of the beach. The Florida Constitution and Florida Supreme Court protect the public’s right to recreate at or below the mean high-water line regardless of upland ownership, granting access to the shoreline as it is

held in trust by the state. Carolyn’s legal team advised that Court that not only was the request for emotional distress damages for a trespass was not allowed by the law, but the Plaintiffs were inappropriately

alleging that all, including the limited liability company, had suffered from emotional distress. Carolyn’s legal team also argued that the beach is analogous to an unfenced yard, there is no expectation of privacy when you can view a property from a public access point. Again, there

was no allegations that Carolyn had been anywhere on the property except for the beach, so the claims for invasion of privacy were not supported by facts. Carolyn’s legal team prepared and served a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss on December 15, 2025, reiterating that there emotional distress damages were inappropriate in a

claim for trespass and there were no allegations that Carolyn had left the shores of the Gulf to invade Plaintiffs’ privacy.

February 10, 2026: Oral Arguments before the First District Court of Appeal The untold story behind the Plaintiffs’ beach house is that they only purchased it as recent as

2023, and then immediately sued the developer to try to move the property line from middle of the beach down to the mean-high water line. While the Plaintiffs did win in the Walton County Circuit Court on a motion for summary judgment, the developers filed an appeal and took their arguments to the Appellate Court for the First District of Florida. The attorneys for the Dune Allen Beach, Inc. developer argued that the

property had a specific description of the boundaries when the original lot was platted in 1967, measuring 315 ft at the north to south boundary line, and that it was not the developer’s intent for the property boundary to be expanded if the high-water line shifted. Plaintiffs argued that since the shoreline had grown over time and more sand had been deposited on the beach, the property line should be expanded to 355 ft, down to the shifted mean high-water line. The Appellate Court has heard oral arguments and will be issuing an opinion either affirming the lower court’s ruling that the Plaintiffs lawfully gained 40 feet of beach in its property boundaries, or remanding the case back to the lower court for a trial on the facts. If the case is sent back to

the lower court, this will require Plaintiffs to prove that Carolyn was trespassing within the 315 ft of its original property description.

February 17, 2026: Judge Grants Hill’s Motion to Dismiss

On February 17, 2026, Walton County Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Schlechter granted Carolyn’s legal team’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, advising the Plaintiffs that they cannot seek emotional distress damages in claims of trespass, dismissing seven counts of trespass without prejudice. The Court did find that the description of the property was sufficient to support a claim of trespass, and could be refiled. The Court also found that as Carolyn was alleged to be on the beach at all times, the Plaintiffs did not provide legal facts to support that they were in a place on the property where there is an

expectation of privacy, citing a First District Court of Appeals case from 1984 holding that is “no expectation of privacy on an unclosed front porch.” The Court dismissed count eight for invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion without prejudice. The Court also noted that claim nine, stalking, had been dismissed voluntarily at the hearing and

would not be addressed in the order. Plaintiffs were given 20 days to file an amended complaint. Statement from Carolyn’s legal team:

“Ms. Hill is pleased that the Court has seen through the legal insufficiencies in the Complaint, and dismissed all nine counts alleged against her. The Florida Constitution protects Ms. Hill’s

access to the shorelines to enjoy her local beach that she has frequented for decades. Ms. Hill will continue to stand strong in her defense that all have rights to access the beaches of Walton County without fear of litigation. The burden is on the Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, and they

have failed to do so at this time.”

February 25, 2026: Plaintiffs file Amended Complaint Against Carolyn Hill for 7 Counts of Trespassing On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs once again filed a lawsuit against Carolyn alleging more than $50,000.00 in unspecified damages for seven counts of alleged trespass on the beach that has been blocked off as private by no trespassing signs and the use of beach chairs and furniture set out by the property manager.

The Amended Complaint false alleges that Carolyn antagonized, bullied, and harassed the Plaintiffs, forcing them to hire security, losing their sense of privacy, and suffering the loss of enjoyment and ownership of their property. Not only are some of the allegations regurgitated

from the formerly deficient facts, the Plaintiffs are now asking the Court to charge Carolyn for their attorney’s fees and costs, and order her to not even approach their property, which would prevent her from accessing the shoreline. Plaintiffs abandoned their claim for invasion of privacy, as there were no facts that could support it. Carolyn’s legal team has until March 17, 2026, to respond to the Amended Complaint. Statement from Carolyn’s legal team: “After reviewing the Amended Complaint against Ms. Hill, it is clear that it continues to suffer from similar legal deficiencies that led to dismissal of the prior complaint, along with additional

new defects. We expect the Court will again conclude that the allegations fail to state a legally sufficient claim upon which relief may be granted. Ms. Hill remains steadfast in her position that

every person regardless of social or financial status has the constitutional right to access and enjoy Florida’s beaches without fear of intimidation through litigation. The Florida Constitution protects Ms. Hill’s right to use the shoreline in Walton County, where she has recreated for decades and has never been cited for trespassing. The claim that her lawful presence caused more than $50,000 in damages is unsupported by fact or law and appears designed as a deterrent to keep others off the shoreline whereby Plaintiffs have no right of exclusion. No member of the public should be forced to risk costly litigation simply to enjoy

Florida’s beaches as the Constitution guarantees.”

February 27, 2026: Complaint Against Walton County Sherrif’s Office is Dismissed with Prejudice Plaintiff, BLB Beach Hutt, LLC, the Littrell’s company and the named property owner of the beach house, filed a lawsuit against the Walton County Sheriff’s Office asking the Court to force the Sheriff’s to arrest or remove beachgoers for trespassing that Plaintiff believed are on its property. Plaintiff also asked the Court to award it damages from the Sheriff converting its private beach property into a public beach access. The Sheriff’s Office argued that it had a duty

to protect the public at large and not one particular property owner, and maintained the discretion as to whether or not to enforce its laws. The Court declined to find that failing to ask beachgoers to leave was converting the Plaintiff’s property to a public beach. The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be refiled.

Statement from Carolyn’s legal team:

“It is unsurprising that the Court has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, precluding BLB Beach Hut, LLC, from asserting these baseless claims against the County once more. Judge Lewis recognizes that the Sheriff’s Office has a duty to the public at large, which includes those

lawfully on the beaches of the Gulf, and not to a singular property owner. It is notable that the Judge dismissed on the merits of the pleadings without a hearing, sending a clear message that

no oral arguments or amendments would have cured the legal defects, and that the supplemental complaint filed by Plaintiff did not warrant any more of the Court’s time or resources, commodities that are funded by the tax paying residents of Walton County, Florida. ”