PEN on Twitter

image

photo by sipstar

A Floridian, Fane Lozman, bought the two-story floating residence in 2002, and had it towed to North Beach Village in Florida, where it stayed in two marinas until a hurricane destroyed the docks in the second marina where it was moored.  In March 2006, Lozman had it towed to a marina in Riviera Beach, and continued to use it as his primary home.   The marina was owned by the city, and it supplied the houseboat with electricity, as well as water from a city utility.   After three years, the city contended that Lozman had not been paying his dockage rent or for city services.  In March 2009, the city told him to pay up, sign a new dockage fee agreement, and improve the structure, or else face a legal claim in admiralty court for trespass and for failure to pay for marine “necessaries.”

Following the usual practice in such maritime cases, the city sued the houseboat itself, and the case became known as “City of Riviera Beach v. That certain unnamed, gray, two story vessel approximately 57 feet in length.”  Whether that court had jurisdiction to hear the city’s claims depended upon whether, legally, the houseboat was a “vessel.”   The city insisted that it was, Lozman argued that it was not.  The city ultimately won in both a federal district court and in the Eleventh Circuit Court.

The district judge concluded that it made no difference that Lozman’s floating home was not intended to be a transportation vehicle, since the prevailing law in the Eleventh Circuit was that any structure that can be towed on the water is a “vessel” for maritime purposes.   The judge ordered Lozman to pay $3,039.99 in delinquent dockage payments, plus $1 for “maritime trespass.”  Adding in interest and some other fees, the final judgment was for $3,053.26.  To cover those assessments, the judge ordered the houseboat to be sold.  It was sold at an auction in March 2010, with the city buying it as the highest bidder.

The Court did not learn until Lozman’s lawyers filed their merits brief in May that the houseboat had since been destroyed.  The brief mentioned that in a single sentence: “The City subsequently destroyed it.”  In July, the city told the Court in its brief that it had tried without success to sell the boat, and that it also could not give it away — both Habitat for Humanity and AMVETS would not accept it as a donation, the city said.  “Faced with the high costs of keeping the houseboat, respondent [the city] destroyed it.”

(Source: scotusblog.com)

blog comments powered by Disqus