Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

2013-01-15

Headline: Court rules a non-self-propelled floating home is not a 'vessel,' narrowing when marinas can use federal maritime law to collect dockage or liens against similar stationary houseboats.

Holding: The Court held that Lozman’s non-self-propelled floating home is not a "vessel" because a reasonable observer would not view it as practically designed to transport people or cargo over water.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for marinas to use admiralty liens against stationary floating homes.
Reduces likelihood of Coast Guard inspections for similar non-self-propelled floating homes.
Leaves state rules treating floating homes like land homes more influential.

Topics: maritime law, floating homes, marina fees, vessel definition, dock liens

Summary

Background

Fane Lozman is the owner of a 60-by-12-foot floating home that he bought in 2002 and kept moored at marinas, most recently at a city-owned marina in Riviera Beach, Florida. After disputes about fees and attempts to remove the home, the city sued to collect dockage fees and trespass money under federal maritime law, saying the floating home was a "vessel." Lower courts agreed the structure was a vessel, and the case reached the Court because different federal appeals courts had applied different tests.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the floating home was "capable of being used as a means of transportation on water," reading that phrase to require a practical, not merely theoretical, transportation design. The majority used a "reasonable observer" test, looking at the home’s physical traits and activities. It noted the home lacked self-propulsion, steering, and independent power, had ordinary house-like rooms with French doors and windows, relied on shore utilities, and made long towed moves only rarely. Because a reasonable observer would not see the structure as designed in any practical degree to carry people or cargo over water, the Court held it was not a vessel and reversed the court of appeals.

Real world impact

The decision limits when marinas and others can invoke federal maritime remedies against non-self-propelled floating homes. It also reduces the chance that such homes will be treated like seagoing vessels subject to maritime inspections and special maritime liability rules. The Court noted the case was not moot because a bond protected the owner’s potential recovery.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Kennedy) agreed on many points but criticized the new "reasonable observer" formulation and would have sent the case back for more factfinding, warning the record was thin and the test may cause uncertainty.