New admiralty case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Side note: Justice David Souter participated in this panel by designation, following Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's pattern of an active retirement.
This is a case about maritime lien asserted by a subcontractor whose materials were eventually installed on a vessel. The court did not allow the lien to flow through the various contracting entities to the vessel receiving the materials/services. The case is Cianbro Corp. v. George H. Dean, Inc. and can be found here .
A couple principles or reminders from this case:
- Maritime liens are not akin to mechanic's liens.
- In order to attach a lien to a vessel, the vessel's owner or owner's representative must authorize the work or services. [Note: Love the cite to an admittedly difficult case name to pronounce, Dampskibsselskabet Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas Co. of Cal., 310 U.S. 268, 279 (1940)].
-
The test for proving a maritime lien is simply:
To establish a maritime lien on a vessel, the lien claimant must prove, inter alia, that it provided necessaries to the vessel "on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner." 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a); Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2005). Under 46 U.S.C. § 31341, there are certain persons who are presumed to have authority to procure "necessaries" to a vessel. These include the owner, the master, "a person entrusted with the management of the vessel at the port of supply," or an officer or agent appointed by the owner or "a charterer" of the vessel. 46 U.S.C. § 31341.
In a nod to the more erudite, I thought I would reprint some of the court's vernacular:
In adopting the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge, the district court granted summary judgment against Dean Steel on two alternate grounds which succinctly encapsulate the medulla of the question to be decided by us ...
Hmmm. Apt description of the adversarial judicial system? The court denotes the Standard of Review as "Rules of Engagement"!
Comments