Supreme Court takes case of Florida houseboat owner

Posted on 22 February 2012

ShareTweet

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear the case of whether former Riviera Beach (Fla.) Marina tenant Fane Lozman's houseboat constitutes a "vessel" under maritime law.

In April 2009, Lozman watched federal marshals tow his two-story houseboat away from the city marina with his possessions on board. It was towed to the Miami River and later destroyed, the Palm Beach Post reported.

The city said Lozman failed to sign a dockage agreement that requires vessels moored at the marina to be registered, insured and capable of leaving the marina in case of an emergency.

Lozman says his 57-foot houseboat was a "floating home" with no engines and no boat registration and didn't meet the definition of a vessel.

He lost his case in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Subsequently, he hired Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher to take his case to the Supreme Court.

Lozman, 50, a financial software developer and former Marine Corps pilot, told the newspaper that his case is expected to be heard in October.

City attorney Pamala Ryan said Jules Massee of the Tampa firm Hamilton, Miller and Birthisel, which specializes in admiralty and maritime law, will continue to represent the city in the houseboat case.

“We believe the 11th Circuit's interpretation of the law is on point and we are confident in our ability to successfully argue that position in front of the Supreme Court,” she said.

Click here for the full article.

Comments

4 Monday, 27 February 2012 14:15

By Eddyboats

Hmmmmmmmm. There must be more to the story. For instance , why was it there in the first place and for how long ? I'm sure the owner did. Of simply float in and tie up like a squatter. The marina must have allowed him in at some point. I believe it is true that it is not a "vessel". It may as well be on pilings. So basically if there is a storm or fire it would be exposed to the same potential damage and/or destruction as any other structure located at that particular marina. If the marina or municipality has changed its rules since the floating home first arrived then that is another story. And regardless of all of the details , the man should not have had to lose everything he owned in the process. :(

3 Friday, 24 February 2012 21:40

By boatman

Simple case of not following the RULES. If the marina didn't have rules then they would have nothing but junk boats (which his may have been) in the marina. This is the same guy that if there was a storm who would want to blame the marina for damage because they DIDN'T tow his boat to safe harbor. My vote is with the marina. Throw the non-compliant owner out.

2 Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:53

By Marty

Very true, however there is no reason that it should have to have an engine. That is why they have tow boats and tug boats. They still had no right to detroy the boat and his property. A floating home in private marina hardly falls under international maratime law. Why did US Marshals get involved in a matter within city limits? Something is not quiet right.

1 Wednesday, 22 February 2012 17:33

By Jeff Martini

Of course it's a vessel. He's got himself a waterfront home that's probably worth 10 grand - fair enough. But, he has got to conform to the rules of the marina. Otherwise anyone with a floating scow can lash it to your dock, rules be damned.

Add your comment

Your name:	Required, screen names acceptable
Your email:	Required, will not be published
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments Policy.:
Word verification:
	Post Preview

yvComment v.1.21.1