Supreme Court to Take Riviera Beach Houseboat Case

Every once in a while, the Supreme Court will take on cases that seem a bit odd to the eyes of the taxpayer. In Riviera Beach, Florida, a certain houseboat owned by a Mr. Fane Lozman appeared to have irked the local authorities due to its "lack of compliance with new marina-safety requirements" as the U.S. Marshals invoked maritime law to seize said home. He argued that the city took its interpretation of a vessel too far and blew the whole issue out of proportion. He went on to say that the house itself was very rudimentary, had no steering capabilities, and had no means of propulsion as it was brought to the marina in the first place by means of a towboat.

Apparently the city had some issues with him before as he sued it back in 2006 for proposing a new marina redevelopment project that was planned as soon as it was evident that what he was bringing to the marina was not a typical boat. The city lost the case since the jury ruled in his favor, particularly due to the fact that the city's motivation was strictly based on preventing him from being there in the first place. The city went on to federal court two years later and it seems that Lozman won there, in part to the consequences that such a ruling would have on floating casinos and the duties of the Coast Guard. After much progress, the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and the first arguments were heard on the 1st of October.

In my opinion this case will have some significant repercussions either way that it is ruled. Apparently this is an issue that has been around for a while, particularly in some of the Southern states along the Gulf and would likely impact at least a few industries and professions. Additionally, the whole issue will drag maritime law into the mix and could result in some disputes in the future. The general issue at hand is summed up well by an article from PRWeb :

"The Supreme Court will consider the question of “whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored receives power and other utilities from shore and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a ‘vessel’ under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.” In light of the consequences of being determined as a "vessel" for purposes of federal tort, employment and maritime safety laws, the court’s decision will have significant implications to floating casinos, restaurants, and hotels."

Food for thought!
--Ilia Dolaptchiev

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the PRWeb Article:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb9981562.htm

Link to Supreme Court case details:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-626.htm

Link to Supreme Court case question at hand:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/11-00626qp.pdf

Brief Video Recap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeJdeNNNtYs