I totally agree, it's not the towns responsibility to take care of someones boat, or to pay their bills.This is the MOST ABSURD comment I've read on this forum in a long time. The OWNER, not the town, has left it "unsecured" it is his/her boat and as such it is his/her responsibility to store it, haul it, cover it and protect it. It is not the obligation of tax payers of the town to foot the bill for your vessels well being and storage.
If this boat had been abandoned in a boat yard, such as MVSY, they would have owned it via lien long ago and sold it to recoup the storage fees. This actually happens all the time.
Perhaps in Canada it is the duty of the town TAXPAYERS to haul & store your vessel for you? Do you let your neighbors foot the bill for your storage? Do they also pay for covering and protection of your vessel when dry stored?
Here in the US we pay our own way and do not let our boats sit on town property without paying for the storage. Why is it the towns, or more correctly, the individual tax payers of the towns job to store your boat for you, protect it, cover it and care for it. The answer is quite simple, it is NOT!
And I thought people in the US were "lawsuit happy" ......The tax payers of the town should be getting reimbursed BY THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL, on a sq foot storage basis, comparable to what local boat yards charge or the vessel sold at auction to recoup SOME of the storage fees.
It seems the owner probably owes the town and its taxpayers over 10k in storage fees at this point.
Jeez maybe I'll just plop my boat in the town park next winter for FREE, what a deal..........
But the gist of the story is that the owner left it tied up at a dock, tied up to a dock pretty much means 'secured'. Leaving the boat there stacks up storage fees, they have the right to hold the boat till the owner pays those fees. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of laws that allow taking ownership or possession of property for unpaid fees etc.
Thing is They took the boat from a secure location and moved to to a less secure area (anchored outside the harbor) which sounds as though it could have been outside city limits.
Once it left their property they gave up any right to taking possession of it, they effectively turned it from " You owe us storage fees, we have your boat, pay the fees and you can have it" into "here's your boat, pay the fees when you can or want."
When they went back and again took possession of the boat, they were actually stealing it.
They had legal right to haul it until they moved it out of the harbor and away from their docks. After moving it off their property, they gave up any rights to holding the boat, their course of action should have been going to court and put a lien on it, or get legal papers allowing them to take possession.
Not saying the owner doesn't owe storage fees, He does owe them, but legally he only owes the storage fees up to the time the harbormaster moved the boat out of the harbor. (did owe, see below)
But:
Mr. Lynch met with the HMD to discuss his situation and paid his mooring fees in August 2005, Mr. Crocker said. A year later, his sister paid the town for the hauling bill from MVSY. Since the HMD had stored Riot for two and a half years, Mr. Crocker said the department would like to be compensated $6,460, in keeping with MVSY's storage rates.
His fees, along with extras are paid.
and this:
After years of neglect, the boat's fiberglass exterior is marred by broken ports, graffiti, and faded paint. Its interior is a tumble of trash and debris.
sounds like they are not practicing due diligence as far as storage is concerned. Basically, confiscation laws state that people who confiscate property are required to keep that property in good condition and practice due diligence in keeping it secure.
from
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleIII/Chapter239/Section4
(8) shall send by first class mail to the defendant’s last and best known address monthly statements of the amount of advances made and of liabilities incurred for which the warehouseman claims a lien or security interest pursuant to this section; and (9) shall insure the defendant’s property against fire and theft in the amount of no less than $10,000. A warehouser who accepts goods under this section is liable for any loss or injury to the goods caused by his or her failure to exercise such care in regard to them as a reasonably careful person would exercise under like circumstances but unless otherwise agreed or provided in this section, the warehouser is not liable for damages which could not have been avoided by the exercise of such care. No person shall be required to release a warehouser from liability as a condition of release of any stored property.
Every state has laws that are very similar to that, seized property has to be protected as well as you would your own.
edit:
This excerpt is not specifically dealing with vehicles, I'm unable to find a specific citation, but they all follow the basic premise that seized property has to be kept safe, either inside a building or in a secure area.
