"Flying Pig" wrote in message
...
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]


Interesting. This decision indicates that there is a federal definition of
'vessel' that supersedes and doesn't take into consideration the Florida
statutory definition of 'houseboat'. If this is true then the State of
Florida mandating a particular type of MSD for a 'houseboat' as opposed to
a 'vessel' is flawed. The above could be used to advantage by any
houseboat owner who got ticketed by the FWC for not having a permanently
installed toilet and holding tank because as a "vessel" said houseboat has
a choice of Type I, II or III MSD.

Wilbur Hubbard