Supreme Court says floating home is not a vessel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When is a floating home not a vessel? In a ruling on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court told a Florida city its argument did not hold water, and that an abode on water was nothing but a home.

In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that a gray, two-story home which its owner said was permanently moored to a marina in Riviera Beach, Florida, was not a vessel, depriving the city of power under U.S. maritime law to seize and ultimately destroy it.

"Not every floating structure is a 'vessel,'" Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. "To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not 'vessels.'"

In limiting the reach of U.S. maritime law, Breyer said there was nothing about the home of Fane Lozman, a trader and former Marine pilot, to lead a "reasonable observer" to conclude that it was a vessel, but for the fact that it floated.

The definition of "vessel" is particularly important, given that admiralty law imposes different obligations on owners with respect to such things as staffing and taxation. Tuesday's decision addressed the extent to which that law applies to homes, hotels and riverboat casinos that are permanently moored.

In ruling for Lozman, the court also handed a victory to the casino industry. In court papers, that industry argued that dozens of floating casinos should not be subject to federal maritime laws designed to protect seamen, on top of state laws for the licensing and regulation of the gaming business.

Lozman, his lawyer, and lawyers for Riviera Beach did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

City officials had seized Lozman's home after he resisted a court order that he pay $3,040 in dockage fees, and destroyed the home after being unable to sell it. Tuesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling upholding the fees.

Lozman had claimed that it was wrong for Riviera Beach to invoke federal maritime law, saying the home lacked the usual seafaring features such as a motor and GPS device, and needed land-based sewer lines and an extension cord for power.

The battle took place after Lozman had resisted new rules governing houseboats at his marina and opposed a proposed $2.4 billion luxury redevelopment of the marina.

Joining Breyer's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented, in the term's first dissenting votes from a full court opinion. Sotomayor objected to the "reasonable observer" standard adopted by the majority.

The case is Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-626.

(Editing by Howard Goller and Mohammad Zargham)

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

good morning america jon hamm jon hamm kim kardashian law school rankings ncaa bracket predictions jeff foxworthy heather morris