Skip to main content

Is a Houseboat a House or a Vessel?

The Daily Business Review lays out the story of Fane Lozman, the man who owned a houseboat, floating home or other item that floated off the Rivera Beach that the U.S. Supreme Court has now heard oral argument on. This case was debated during a recent meeting of the Florida Bar Admiralty and Maritime Law Committee on September 20th.
 
As background as laid out by the DBR, Lozman made a boatload of money off the tech bubble and decided to live the good life on a houseboat at a Riviera Beach marina. The city, though, had a $2.4 million redevelopment plan for the public marina with its easy access to the ocean. Lozman stood in the city's way and was determined to fight the city's use of eminent domain. Riviera Beach turned to federal maritime law to evict Lozman after he succeeded in state court, arguing he was being retaliated against for speaking out against the redevelopment plan.

Now the former Chicago financial trader is a cause celebre for fellow houseboat residents around the country, fighting his eviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court opened its fall session by hearing arguments in the case. The question for the nine justices was a simple one: whether a houseboat is a house or a boat. According to the DBR, their answer could have wide-ranging consequences for houseboat owners, floating casinos and government agencies. What the DBR forgets is the consequences for marinas and other necessaries providers to these houseboats.
 
According to the DBR, the intent of the houseboat owner should be what is looked at, rather than an objective test of what is a vessel. I query where this would take work platforms, work rafts and other equipment utilized by employers of maritime workers. If a worker is on these types of work platforms, can the employer simply state that these platforms were not intended to leave the work area, didn't have a motor, had no reasonable way of transporting itself and meant to stay in one location, as a way of avoiding Jones Act liability to crew of vessels? I wonder what the maritime plaintiffs' bar has to say about this? Barges are "motorless boats", do they now not become vessels if they are stationary and the owner says it was not intended to be a vessel?

The transcript of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is now available. It is quite interesting discourse for those following this case. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the transcript, please feel free to write to me at mov@chaloslaw.com to get your copy.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of the DBR article, you may also ask me for an electronic copy.

Comments

  1. PHIL FRIEDMANOctober 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    Hopefully, SCOTUS will take the time to fazmiliarize itself with the factual issues of the marine industry in its broadest sense. Constructing a definition that relies on "intent" is a quagmire waiting to happen. Vessels are not distinguished by such features as self-propulsion, witness barges which can by no rational means be excluded from the class of "vessels." So a "houseboat" becomes a house on a barge. The only rational distinguishing elements are 1) is it afloat?, and 2) is it in any way permanently connected to shore? But no being a lawyer, what do I know anyway?

    Phil Friedman
    www.YachtBuildAdvisor.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wally MoranOctober 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

    The DBR has no concept of maritime issues and law - their opinion, as interesting as it may be, will have no bearing on the decision of the SCOTUS.
    Media does this too often - publish a story written by someone with no real familiarity with the issues at hand. Everyone gets hot under the collar over a story that will have no bearing on the final outcome.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget.   The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos...
6 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more