Supreme court rules in favor of civilian

[woodster]

this may or may not be sailing related but i thought it interesting none the less with all the hula balu about Florida high handed legal system on coastal waters of late.....

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-says-floating-home-not-vessel-154307160--finance.html

regards

woody

 

[kloudie1]

Saw that in the paper this morning too.. (yep, hardcopy) sort of goes against the historical decisions, I think.. could lead to some interesting lawsuits in Sausalito and Seattle..??

 

[Charles Erwin]

This case stands for a very limited propostion.

The question the Supreme Court faced was whether a landlord creditor - here the city for moorage fees - could enforce its claim in a federal court Admiralty proceeding. In this case, the federal trial court found it had jurisdiction under Admiralty law and ruled in favor of the city.

However, the legal question is whether the "res" - the houseboat - is a vessel under Admiralty law. If not the federal trial court had no jusrisdiction.

All the Supreme Court did was to observe a completely obvious fact - that just because someone charges moorage fees to an owner of something that floats does not mean the moorage creditor in entitled to collect a moorage debt through a federal court Admiralty case.

Frankly, whatever lawyer recommended the city go to federal court in Admiralty to enforce this claim did not think the matter through.

So -- how does Seattle - or any similar place - suffer new obstacles under this descision?

Charles

 

[FourPoints]

What impact will this have on property taxes for people who convert old barges into floating houses?

 

[Charles Erwin]

Even if the houseboat were a vessel, Federal Admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to tax collections by local government.

 

[FourPoints]

But doesn't this open up the states to jack up taxes on floating homes, since they are not considered vessels now?

 

[Charles Erwin]

State statutory definitions might - often do - define houseboats as vessels, in order to impose or exempt such floating homes from taxes, fees, and the like.

This case does not change these state law defiintions - not one little bit.

Just because a state definition includes a houseboat/floating home under the label "vessel" does not mean that federal admiralty jurisdiction exists.

In short - a floating home may be a vessel under state law, but that does not entitle someone to go to a federal court under admiralty jurisdiction in order to sort out disputes/claims concerning that floating home.

Charles

 

[kloudie1]

I am not a lawyer, Charles, but does not that all of a sudden say that those are now houses and subject to the parish (county) or township taxes .. I am not arguing one way or another, it just seems that if it isn't a duck and doesn't walk like one.. then it will be classified as a something else..?? which may have a very different tax structure around it.??

 

[Charles Erwin]

Constructive argument is good - no appoligies necessary.

To the point -- this case does not make any change whatsoever in the method local government uses to impose taxes or fees upon floating homes. Local government - and I include state government here - must enact new specific statutes addressing whether they intend to change the way they are presently imposing taxes upon floating homes before any tax/fee related changes can occur.

This case simply answers the question whether disputes involving floating homes can be resolved in a federal court. It has no value in answering any other question.

Charles

 

[Winkfish]

I just read the opinion, and it seems to me to throw a whole lot of doubt into various aspects of the maritime industry. The central question is, after all, was this structure a vessel for purposes of federal maritime law. It seems to me it may affect treatment of floating rigs, for example. As I recall, they've been considered "vessels" for years, if not decades. Since they are not, however, used for "transportation over water", this decision may change several long-standing precedents in the oilfield industry.

 

[Charles Erwin]

What precedents in the maritime industry do reckon might be effected by this houseboat case? Those involve driliing platforms, jackups, submersibles?

If so, keep in mind that claims concerning oil equipment - though not typically "vessels" under traditional admiralty law - may end up in federal court because of specific enactments by Congress which create federal court jurisdiction over disputes which involve particular kinds of activities involving oil industry equipment.

For example, Jones Act and Longshore & Harborworkers claims can go to federal courts because Congress said so -- they do not get to Federal court as maritime (admiralty) claims.

 

[Winkfish]

Charles, it's been YEARS since I looked at maritime law, so I'm just being curious. I guess I'm thinking of the oil and gas platforms down here in the gulf. I may be wrong, but i understood the state of the law (before this case)(and maybe only in the 5th Circuit) was that a fixed platform was not considered a vessel but a floating platform was. The floating platforms I've seen did not look like anything I would consider a vessel, and they certainly had no "operational" components that typical vessels have. I was just mulling whether this case might change that. As you said though, there may be other specific statutes that may apply instead, but I seem to remember recent cases trying to get to a uniform definition of vessels across the spectrum.

Just wondering. I've always found maritime law to be a fascinating thing.