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

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--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd ., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean. Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship
Post a Comment
Read more

Maritime Law--Jury Hits Royal Caribbean Cruises With $20.3M Verdict for Officer's Hand Injury

In Spearman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises , Case No. 2011-023730-CA-01, a Miami-Dade County, Florida jury has awarded $20.3 million to a former crewmember of Royal Caribbean Cruises, whose hand was crushed while coming to the aid of a fellow worker during an emergency test in 2008. After a three-week trial, the jury found the Miami-based cruise company negligent in operating an unseaworthy ship and 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Lisa Spearman, who was working an officer on Royal Caribbean’s Voyager of the Seas . Spearman sued the company in 2011, three years after her right hand was caught in a watertight power door during a fire-safety drill. According to her lawyers, Spearman was trying to prevent the door from closing on the ship’s nurse when her hand was pulled into a recess pocket of the sliding door and crushed.  The nurse allegedly breached the company’s safety protocol when she stumbled through the door, prompting the response from Spearman. Accordin
Post a Comment
Read more