It appears that if the "vessel" CAN be moved, whether under its own
propulsion or not, it's not a "houseboat" - not that such designation is
always to the owner's benefit, as seen in the following provided by an rbc
friend:

Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida

Certiorari granted: 02/21/12
Case #: 11-626
649 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011)
Lower Court Opinion: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf

ADMIRALTY (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.)

Lozman had his floating home moored to a dock located in the City of Riviera
Beach, and signed a lease with the city to remain there indefinitely. The
City subsequently instituted an in rem proceeding against Defendant Unnamed
Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length
("Defendant") on two counts. The first count was for the tort of trespass
alleging that the Defendant had remained at the City marina after the City
explicitly revoked its consent. The second count was to initiate
foreclosure of a maritime lien for unpaid dockage provided to Defendant.
The district court concluded that it had admiralty jurisdiction over the
Defendant because the Defendant was a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. §3. It then
granted a warrant for the arrest of Defendant in connection with the lien
sought by the City. U.S. Marshals arrested the Defendant and towed it to
Miami, Florida. Lozman filed an emergency motion to dismiss the complaint
and return his residence to the city marina. The district court denied the
motion and granted the city's partial summary judgment on its trespass
claim. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the trespass
gave rise to nominal damages of $1 and that the Defendant owed the City
approximately $3,000 under the maritime lien.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court explaining that
its binding precedent mandated that Defendant is a "vessel." Lozman filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari and the Supreme Court granted review to
resolve differences in opinion on this issue among the Eleventh Circuit and
the Fifth and Seventh Circuits. [Summarized by Adriana Jimenez]

L8R

Skip

--

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land.
- Dr. Samuel Johnson