Skip to main content

Maritime Law--Lozman's "Floating Home" Saga Ends at SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Fane Lozman's latest appeal in his landmark case involving the seizure and destruction of his floating home. The justices denied without comment Mr. Lozman's petition asking them to enforce their 2013 ruling by ordering the city of Riviera Beach to pay him about $365,000 for the home's value and legal fees. Lower courts also ruled against Mr. Lozman, and this was his last appeal.

Fane Lozman and his dog with floating home in foreground
Picture from the Associated Press

The ruling obtained by Mr. Lozman in 2013 set a new standard for floating homes and other structures. As posted previously in this blog, the ruling meant that federal maritime law that calls for seizure under Supplemental Rule C could no longer be applied to disputes involving floating structures that have no traditional characteristics of a vessel, such as an engine, rudder or sails. As reported by such news sources as the AP, the Daily Business Review and other well known sources, the decision has affected thousands of floating homes and business owners across the U.S., including floating gambling casinos docked on rivers. In the cases currently before the courts, maritime lawyers, including our office, are taking a closer look at the right cases to evaluate whether the alleged vessel, is in fact a vessel under Mr. Lozman's precedent setting case. 

However in this latest submission to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Lozman contended that the city should reimburse him the estimated $165,000 value of the floating home destroyed, plus $200,000 in legal fees. The city relied on a vessel survey expert to suggest that the amount of his vessel was worth far less than the amounts demanded by Mr. Lozman. The city also argued that it should not be forced to pay Mr. Lozman's attorney's fees because it was acting in good faith under the applicable law at the time before the Supreme Court decision. The city's view was adopted in full by the district court judge and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Lozman's position before the Supreme Court is that these lower court rulings rejecting full reimbursement for his home, when what the lower courts are doing is attempting to provide a pyhrric victory by reimbursing him only for a destroyed vessel, worth considerably less. Mr. Lozman's  position is that these rulings fly in the face of the original Supreme Court decision.


If you are interested in obtaining in reading Mr. Lozman's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, please feel free to contact me via this blog or at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co.

Comments

  1. UnknownJanuary 19, 2018 at 6:59 AM

    Good Blog ... your blog is very helpful... I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing...
    Maritime Law

    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