P.J. Adams Parkway Property Lawsuit Remains Open After Amended Complaint
Richard and Susan Goff allege road and utility work damaged their property. A June order required clearer claims; the reviewed record establishes no final award.
A property dispute over the widening of P.J. Adams Parkway in Crestview remains open in Okaloosa County Circuit Court. Richard and Susan Goff, suing as trustees, allege that construction and utility work damaged a drainage structure and access to their land. The reviewed filings do not establish that the county or any company owes a final judgment or settlement. [1] [2] [3]
What the property owners allege
The June 18, 2026 second amended complaint says the Goffs constructed a concrete water-retention facility around 2009. It alleges that workers entered without permission during the road project, relocated utility lines on or beneath their property and undermined the structure until it collapsed. The plaintiffs say the drainage structure also serves as the parcel’s only entrance and exit, leaving the land unusable until it is rebuilt. These are allegations in the complaint, not findings that the defendants caused the damage. [2, pages 3–5]
The complaint alleges damages exceeding $50,000. That figure is a claim, not money awarded. Its nineteen counts include claims against utility companies, an inverse-condemnation claim against Okaloosa County and contract-related claims against C.W. Roberts Contracting. This is a Crestview-area county case, not a lawsuit against the City of Fort Walton Beach. [1] [2]
What the judge actually decided
On June 10, Judge David Oberliesen struck an October 23, 2024 second amended complaint because it had been filed without leave of court or the opposing parties’ written consent. The order dismissed the trespass and ejectment counts of the first amended complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs twenty days to amend. [3, pages 3–7]
The court identified claims grouped against multiple defendants without sufficient separation, missing supporting documents, an incomplete chain of title and inadequate facts identifying each defendant’s conduct and ownership of the utility lines. Those pleading deficiencies were not a final determination of who caused the alleged damage. [3, pages 4–7]
The judge declined at that stage to dismiss the trespass claim on statute-of-limitations grounds. The order said the distinction between a one-time entry and a continuing trespass required more specific allegations and involved factual issues, leaving defendants free to raise that defense again. [3, pages 6–7]
The case continued after the order
The Goffs filed another second amended complaint on June 18. The docket subsequently lists July motions to dismiss and later service filings, with a September 29 notice of service the latest dated document entry visible when checked on October 20. The clerk lists the case as open. A motion asking for dismissal is not itself an order granting dismissal. [1] [2]
Our review has not established a final liability ruling, damages award, settlement or payment. The allegations, the defendants’ requests for dismissal and the judge’s procedural rulings must be kept separate when assessing the case. [1] [3]
Records obtained and what comes next
We have preserved 31 available PDFs totaling 826 pages. That is the downloaded set, not a claim that every page has been substantively reviewed or that the entire court file is complete. This initial report relies on the docket, the June 10 order and the June 18 complaint identified below.
We have submitted requests for 76 additional document entries totaling 250 pages through the clerk’s Viewable on Request process. The clerk now marks those entries pending. The process allows staff to review and redact protected information before public access. We will check for released documents and later rulings before reporting any outcome. [1]
Sources & archive records
- ClerkQuest docket — Goff v. Okaloosa County et al., 2024-CA-002833-C
Search case 2024 CA 002833 C. Open status and docket checked October 20, 2026. Document access may require registration.
- Second Amended Complaint, June 18, 2026 — docket entry 111
Sixteen-page downloaded filing reviewed for this report. Allegations attributed to the plaintiffs; not judicial findings.
- Order granting motions to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend, June 10, 2026 — docket entry 110
Eight-page downloaded order; particularly pages 3–7. The order addresses the first amended complaint and the unauthorized October 2024 amendment.
Keep reading
View all
Fort Walton Beach Records Show Nearly $2 Million in General Fund Transfers
Utilities, sanitation and stormwater entries provide a starting point for tracing how money moves between city funds.
Fort Walton Beach’s $673,222 Storm-Drain Entry Has an Offsetting Adjustment
A construction account and a capital-outlay reclassification show why a spreadsheet total needs context.
Fort Walton Beach Landfill-Fee Entries Total $1.56 Million
The sanitation export separates disposal charges from trucks, wages and customer collections.