GREAT BAY--Sun Resorts Limited N.V. has appealed the July 7, 2026 court ruling that declared Mullet Bay Beach public property and rejected the company's claim of ownership over the popular shoreline, Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI) Patrice Gumbs confirmed during Friday's continuation of the 2027 national budget debate.
The Minister also disclosed that Sun Resorts has declined to participate in a joint measurement of the boundary between the public beach and its privately owned land, prompting government to move forward with establishing the boundaries independently.
Gumbs provided the update in response to questions from Member of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams, who sought clarification on the status of Mullet Bay following the court ruling, the subsequent appeal and government's ability to continue working with Sun Resorts on matters affecting the wider property.
The Minister confirmed that government prevailed on the central question of beach ownership, but acknowledged that the same ruling also established Sun Resorts' ownership of land immediately behind the beach, generally identified by the vegetation bordering the shoreline.
"Sun Resorts has since appealed the case and chosen to not jointly measure the property," Gumbs told Parliament.
"As measuring public land is the government's prerogative, we will go ahead and establish the boundaries for the beach," he added.
The Minister explained that the purpose of the exercise is to establish precisely where the public beach ends and the private property belonging to Sun Resorts begins.
His disclosure marks another development in the longstanding legal dispute over Mullet Bay, one of St. Maarten's most heavily used beaches and a central part of the country's tourism and recreational landscape.
Court Rejected Sun Resorts' Claim to the Beach
The dispute reached the Court of First Instance after Sun Resorts sought a judicial declaration that its ownership of the surrounding Mullet Bay property extended to the coastline, including the beach itself.
As previously reported by The People's Tribune, the company relied on historical property records, including an 1852 deed describing land near Mullet Pond as extending to the sea.
Sun Resorts argued that the historical transfer included the beach and that ownership had subsequently passed through successive property transfers to the company.
The Government of St. Maarten opposed that interpretation, maintaining that the beach was part of the public domain and had never been lawfully transferred into private ownership.
In its July 7 judgment, the Court examined the historical meaning of the property descriptions and the legal status of beaches under the civil law framework.
The Court concluded that the present-day Mullet Bay Beach could not have been transferred into private ownership through the 1852 transaction because the beach belonged to the public.
The judgment also referred to legal provisions dating back to 1869 establishing that St. Maarten's beaches are public.
Sun Resorts' alternative attempt to establish ownership through long-term possession was unsuccessful.
The ruling therefore rejected the company's principal claim that it owned the beach itself, confirming government's position that Mullet Bay Beach forms part of the public domain.
Following the judgment, Gumbs described the outcome as an important victory for St. Maarten and reiterated government's commitment to safeguarding public access.
Sun Resorts Won Important Portion of Case Involving Land Behind Beach
Although government prevailed on the ownership of the beach, the judgment was not an outright rejection of every claim advanced by Sun Resorts.
The Court also ruled that the land immediately behind the public beach belongs to the company and found that government had acted unlawfully by leasing or otherwise allowing third parties to use portions of that private property without authorization.
The judgment prohibited government from treating the affected private land as its own or granting others permission to occupy or use it.
The Court imposed a potential penalty of US$1 million for each violation of that prohibition.
Government was also ordered to notify affected third parties that the property they had been permitted to use belonged to Sun Resorts and that government had not been authorized to grant those rights.
The notification order carried a potential penalty of US$10,000 per day for noncompliance, up to a maximum of US$250,000.
The ruling consequently established two separate ownership positions: Mullet Bay Beach remains public, while the adjoining land behind the beach is privately owned by Sun Resorts.
Those findings are particularly consequential for businesses and vendors whose operations may extend beyond the legally defined beach.
Government Addresses Vendors and Court Orders
During Friday's parliamentary debate, Gumbs confirmed that government had prepared the required notifications to vendors affected by the judgment.
He indicated that the letters had been drafted and signed, adding that they were either being dispatched or had already been sent.
The Minister did not provide Parliament with a detailed account of how many vendors were affected, whether all notifications had been received, or what arrangements would apply to businesses operating on land identified as private property.
The July judgment had raised particular concerns about the position of vendors and other commercial operators at Mullet Bay.
In earlier statements following the ruling, Gumbs acknowledged that the absence of clearly established property boundaries complicated the situation.
Government subsequently indicated that discussions with Sun Resorts would focus partly on identifying a workable solution for vendors while protecting the public's right to access the beach.
The latest disclosure that Sun Resorts has declined to participate in joint measurements suggests that this aspect of the implementation process will now proceed without the company's cooperation.
Gumbs nevertheless maintained that government has the authority to establish the boundaries of public land and intends to exercise that responsibility.
Appeal Introduces New Stage in Legal Dispute
The confirmation that Sun Resorts has appealed the ruling represents a change from the company's initial public response in July.
Following the judgment, Sun Resorts issued a statement acknowledging the Court's decision and indicating that it was reviewing the legal and practical implications with its advisors.
At that time, the company emphasized the importance of careful communication, respect for legal procedures and constructive engagement with government and other stakeholders.
Sun Resorts also indicated that it had commenced a master planning process for the broader Mullet Bay property, taking account of its environmental, cultural, social and economic importance.
The appeal now places the contested judgment before a higher court for further consideration.
Gumbs did not disclose the specific grounds of appeal, the date on which it was filed or when the matter is expected to be heard.
It therefore remains unclear from his parliamentary response which aspects of the ruling Sun Resorts is challenging and whether the appeal addresses only the ownership of the beach or additional findings in the judgment.
The filing of an appeal does not, by itself, establish that the original judgment has been overturned.
Government Maintains Conditions for Future Mullet Bay Development
Wescot-Williams also questioned the Minister about earlier discussions involving the proposed zoning framework for Mullet Bay and the conditions government had communicated concerning the property's future development.
In response, Gumbs confirmed that before the court judgment and subsequent appeal, government shared the existing draft zoning regulations with Sun Resorts.
He said VROMI, together with the Ministry of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT), had established several priorities for the property.
These included maintaining public access to Mullet Bay Beach, protecting Mullet Pond through a green buffer and preserving the existing golf course.
The Minister's comments indicate that government intends to maintain those planning objectives despite the continuing legal dispute.
The protection of Mullet Pond is particularly relevant because of the area's environmental importance, while the preservation of the golf course and continued beach access have featured prominently in public discussions about future development at Mullet Bay.
However, Gumbs did not announce a finalized master plan or confirm any new agreement with Sun Resorts concerning those conditions.
He also clarified that until a new national zoning plan is established, VROMI will continue evaluating development proposals using the existing draft zoning plans and other applicable policies.
Public Beach Status Remains Central Issue
The dispute over Mullet Bay has implications extending beyond the immediate property boundaries.
At issue is the relationship between private land ownership, commercial activity and public rights over the country's beaches.
The July ruling established government's ownership position concerning Mullet Bay Beach while also recognizing that those public rights do not authorize government to occupy or distribute adjoining private property without the owner's consent.
Sun Resorts' appeal means the legal contest over the judgment is continuing, even as government moves ahead with the practical work of identifying the beach boundaries.
For now, Gumbs' position is that government will proceed with the measurements, address its obligations concerning vendors and continue pursuing its planning objectives for the wider Mullet Bay area.
The next developments will depend on the appellate proceedings, the determination of the property's boundaries and the arrangements ultimately reached concerning existing businesses and future development.
Until the appeal is determined, the July 7 ruling remains the central judicial decision establishing the public status of Mullet Bay Beach and recognizing Sun Resorts' ownership rights over the adjoining private land.
