When is a floating structure not a vessel? The City of Riviera Beach vs That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, Fane Lozman

You know you have a backlog of cases to post when you see a cert petition appealing the un-blogged case....

So, to rectify that delay, let's talk about what is a "vessel" - or if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, but can't swim like a duck ....

Before we start - this video captures a vexing issue relating to federal court jurisdiction - just because it is on water, is it a vessel subject to maritime jurisdiction?

 

The Eleventh Circuit recently held that a floating house, sans engines, inboard utilities, or history of transport, is a vessel for the purposes of federal court jurisdiction. The case is The City of Riviera Beach vs That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, Fane Lozman, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17232 and the opinion can be found here. The cert petition can be found here.

The facts are straightforward - a City permitted a 'floating structure" to tie up to a municipal pier. The structure's owner went unpaid on dockage fees and the City attempted to arrest the "vessel", foreclose a maritime lien and recoup the unpaid debt.

The backstory - one day before Governor Jeb bush signed an anti-eminent domain bill, the City entered into an agreement with a developer to redevelop the marina where the vessel was moored. The owner brought a suit under Florida's Sunshine law. The redevelopment plan was scuttled [sorry, couldn't help it]. Later, the City filed an eviction suit against the owner. A jury trial ensued and the jury found that the City was retaliating against the owner for his speech. The City then amended the requirements for dockage at the City pier, adding insurance, registration, capability for navigation, etc. The owner defaulted on the new obligations and the City brought a suit in rem against the vessel.

So, does a federal court have jurisdiction over a floating structure?

The Supreme Court decision in Stewart v. Dutra, 543 U.S. 481 (2005) provides the test or really U.S. Code does. 1 U.S.C. 3 states that a vessel, for the purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, "includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water."

The court conducted an extensive factual inquiry into the state of the "vessel" then ultimately held that the structure was a vessel for the purposes of admiralty jurisdiction.

Stay tuned...