It erected signs at both ends of Block M, visible from the one occasion if they interfered with public use, leaving the family prac­tically powerless to stop the public traverse. The family filed an action against the city to quiet title to their beach parcel, and the city agreed to a fi­nal judgment in the family’s favor. However, this did not stop the city’s and the public’s ongoing use of their beach parcel as well as the divorce process. In 2009, the family filed a state court action against the city for in­ verse taking of their beach property by inviting , encouraging, facilitat­ing and participating in continual public trespass that eliminate d the right to exclude the public child relocation. The city claimed a public use right under the plat terms, by virtue of its ownership of the former developer’s residence lot.  It also denied responsibility for the public use, blaming simple public wanderlust. The family amended their com­plaint to add a claim  for  damages for unreasonable seizure of their property in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 13 The city then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The district court conducted a jury trial on liability and damages issues for both the taking and seizure counts. The Court agreed jury instruction on the taking count provided: A taking can also occur when the government, through its actions , exercises  or  causes to be exercised domain over private real property so as to deprive the owner of its use or enjoyment. In such cases, a de facto taking is said to have occurred …. After these actions, public use of Block M and the family’s beach parcel substantially increased. The family tried unsuccessfully to stop the public from using their beach parcel, but the city removed their makeshift barriers and even threatened to arrest them on the spot if they didn’t agree to a contested divorce.