What is a vessel goes before the Supreme Court

[Turtlesboat]

This is an interesting story, many behind the scenes dramas over the years, but the issue going before the Supreme Court is what is a Vessel. Basically the guys floating home was declared by the city to be a vessel, towed away and destroyed. I guess under maritime law, if you don't pay registration fees on a vessel, they can place a lien on it and seize it. So even though it had no motor, no means to steer, no navigation lights, no bilge pumps, but it floated on the water and was able to be towed somewhere, the local court declared it to be a vessel and seized it. there are many floating home owners all over the US that will be impacted by this decision. I don't know if they'll go into what powers a city has over a vessel or not or if they will redefine what is or isn't a vessel. But just the fact that out of 10,000 cases brought before the Supreme Court every year, They chose this one to hear.

http://news.yahoo.com/clash-over-floating-home-reaches-us-supreme-court-144928490.html

 

[Turtlesboat]

Hmmm, according to this, a vessel is anything that can float, regardless of what it's intended or build use was. Does that mean a refrigerator can be declared a vessel? What about a floating dock? if that's declared a vessel, will marinas and home owners be required to register them as vessels? What about a restaurant that floats on the water, will they now require a Captain and have life vests for everyone inside eating dinner? And what is practical? If I chain my vessel to a dock, is it no longer a vessel?

Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction—“Vessel” Status

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution extends the judicial power of the United States “to all Cases of admiralty or maritime Jurisdiction.” Congress, in turn, has granted federal district courts exclusive original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1333. An in rem admiralty proceeding must be based on a maritime lien, a property right that only attaches to a “vessel,” see 46 U.S.C. § 31342. Under 1 U.S.C. § 3, “[t]he word ‘vessel’ includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 11-626, to address the scope of this definition of “vessel” for the purpose of triggering federal admiralty jurisdiction.

Respondent, the City of Riviera Beach, brought an in rem suit in federal district court for trespass and to foreclose on a maritime lien on a floating residential structure owned by petitioner, Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that his floating residential structure was not a “vessel” and should instead be treated as a land-based residence. The district court held that the floating structure was a “vessel” for purposes of federal admiralty jurisdiction and then ruled for the City on the merits.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Lozman’s floating residential structure was a “vessel” subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction. The court held that a floating structure is a “vessel,” regardless of the purpose for which it was constructed or its intended use, as long as it is “practically capable of transportation over water by means of a tow.” 643 F.3d 1259, 1269. The Eleventh Circuit rejected tests adopted by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, which focus on the owner’s intended and actual use of the structure rather than the structure’s potential ability to move or be towed across water.

The Court’s decision on what constitutes a “vessel” will be important to commercial owners of floating structures, including those in the casino, restaurant, and hotel industries. Aside from determining whether disputes over such structures are subject to federal jurisdiction and federal tort law, the Court’s decision is likely to determine whether structures of the type at issue are subject to various tax, employment, and safety laws whose application depends upon whether the structure in question is a “vessel.”

 

[Woody]

So a paddle board and innertube are vessels?

 

[Turtlesboat]

According to the 11th circuit, you're a vessel (assuming you float).

 

[mrpaper]

Only if someone is riding on your back and using you for transportation

Gary

 

[Henry Boyd]

According to the 11th circuit, you're a vessel (assuming you float).

I've been following this in the trade press for the past several weeks and here is my take. Turtle's point is sort of the point of why The Supremes are going to hear this one. There are equally rational arguments as to why this guy's floating house is a vessel, and enough as to why it is not. For starters, its been towed around a bit. The lack of bilge pumps means nothing, many barges do not have them and rely on portable pumps, or pumping supplied by the towing vessel. Equally, lack of lights - lights are only needed for after dark/ low light operations. On the other hand, its the guy's house!

The implications are very significant beyond floating casinos and hotels. Environmental regulation, safety regulation, health regulation all related vessel related activities are governed by maritime jurisdiction. Local zoning laws end at the interstitial tide zone by Federal law. This could be a game changer.

But the take away for us as owner's of what are indisputably 'vessels' is the power of Admiralty Law; piss off someone in government, or generate a big enough bill and the Marshals will come knocking on your door regardless of the size of your vessel.

Henry

 

[jhild]

I read this and immediately thought about a the many 'Coast Guard Boarding' threads I’ve seen over the years. I’m guessing that if you live on a “vessel,” then the CG and any other authorized Fed or local LEO can search every nook and cranny of your home any time they want under the guise of a safety inspection.