Supreme Court Rules Floating Home Not A Vessel Under Federal Maritime Law

On January 15, 2013, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision with two justices dissenting, ruled that a so-called "floating home" which did not have self-propulsion and essentially consisted of a house-like plywood structure with French doors floating on an empty bilge space, did not come within the definition of a vessel under 1 U.S.C. § 3 and therefore was not subject to maritime law. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, docket 11-626, 568 US ___ (1/15/2013).

The plaintiff purchased the floating home in 2002, and towed it from one marina to another on several prior occasions. At the time of the lawsuit, the home was moored at a marina owned by the city of Riviera Beach (the city) where it was docked. The city attempted to evict the plaintiff due to several disputes over dockage fees and other issues. After the city was unsuccessful in its eviction attempts, it brought a federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home, contending it was a vessel under 1 U.S.C. § 3 and, therefore, subject to a maritime lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass. 1 U.S.C. § 3 defines a vessel as including "every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water." The city ultimately took possession of the structure and had it destroyed. Both the District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city and upheld the assertion of maritime jurisdiction and the validity of the maritime lien.

In its reversal, the Supreme Court seems to step back from the very expansive view it expressed in an earlier decision, Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), wherein it held that a dredge, which consisted of a massive floating platform from which suspended clam shell buckets removed silt from the ocean floor, constituted a vessel. The Stewart Court essentially based its holding on the fact that it was capable of movement (even though it was not self-propelled), and it served a water bourn transportation function, further to the work it performed with regard to the dredging of a channel in Boston Harbor.

The Lozman Court distinguished Stewart based on the physical nature of the floating home; the fact that it was not capable of being used as a means of transportation over water; and that it was actually not being used for transportation, even if it was actually possible to use the home for transportation in a limited way. In so deciding, the Court...