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

"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

Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf
.....................

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'.

It doesn't say this and it also doesn't indicate this.

In connection with the, What's a 'vessel'? question, it ruled merely
that, for the purposes of the case, that is, that 'the point' at issue
in this respect was merely whether for the purpose of determining what
may be the subject of federal admiralty jurisdiction in a foreclosure
of a maritime lien proceeding in admiralty, the federal law definition
of 'vessel' and not what states variously may adopt and use for their
state law purposes governs. Hardly interesting and not novel.

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.

This is a state law issue enforceable by the state as a matter of
state law and does not implicate federal court admiralty jurisdiction
in a maritime lien foreclosure proceeding prosecuted under federal
maritime law.

wrote in message
...
Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf
.....................

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'.

It doesn't say this and it also doesn't indicate this.

In connection with the, What's a 'vessel'? question, it ruled merely
that, for the purposes of the case, that is, that 'the point' at issue
in this respect was merely whether for the purpose of determining what
may be the subject of federal admiralty jurisdiction in a foreclosure
of a maritime lien proceeding in admiralty, the federal law definition
of 'vessel' and not what states variously may adopt and use for their
state law purposes governs. Hardly interesting and not novel.

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.

This is a state law issue enforceable by the state as a matter of
state law and does not implicate federal court admiralty jurisdiction
in a maritime lien foreclosure proceeding prosecuted under federal
maritime law.




Ah, but that's where you're clearly in error. The fact remains that
federal admiralty law takes precedence over any contradictory state
statutes. The case in question demonstrates that.

Here is something for your to read.

http://www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/...sanitation.pdf

It is long and some of it doesn't apply but to sum it up it allows states
to create a houseboat designation for MSD device purposes only. It follows
then that the federal law definition of a houseboat as a vessel first and
foremost could contradict the state of Florida using the limited
definition for MSD device purposes only to enforce the type of MSD
required. Since federal law states a houseboat is INDEED a *vessel* no
matter what as long as it floats on the water then the federal law that
states a *vessel* must have either a Type I, II or III to be legally
compliant is at odds with Florida's state law requirement that a houseboat
have a specific type of MSD (Type III)

Get the drift?

Wilbur Hubbard

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:45:29 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf
.....................

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'.

It doesn't say this and it also doesn't indicate this.

In connection with the, What's a 'vessel'? question, it ruled merely
that, for the purposes of the case, that is, that 'the point' at issue
in this respect was merely whether for the purpose of determining what
may be the subject of federal admiralty jurisdiction in a foreclosure
of a maritime lien proceeding in admiralty, the federal law definition
of 'vessel' and not what states variously may adopt and use for their
state law purposes governs. Hardly interesting and not novel.

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.

This is a state law issue enforceable by the state as a matter of
state law and does not implicate federal court admiralty jurisdiction
in a maritime lien foreclosure proceeding prosecuted under federal
maritime law.




Ah, but that's where you're clearly in error. The fact remains that
federal admiralty law takes precedence over any contradictory state
statutes. The case in question demonstrates that.

Here is something for your to read.

http://www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/...sanitation.pdf

It is long and some of it doesn't apply but to sum it up it allows states
to create a houseboat designation for MSD device purposes only. It follows
then that the federal law definition of a houseboat as a vessel first and
foremost could contradict the state of Florida using the limited
definition for MSD device purposes only to enforce the type of MSD
required. Since federal law states a houseboat is INDEED a *vessel* no
matter what as long as it floats on the water then the federal law that
states a *vessel* must have either a Type I, II or III to be legally
compliant is at odds with Florida's state law requirement that a houseboat
have a specific type of MSD (Type III)

Get the drift?

Wilbur Hubbard

There was a case in Florida
http://www.appellate.net/docketrepor...rt_21Feb12.asp
where the federal court defines "vessel".

It seems to define "vessel" as about anything that floats and can be
used as a means of transportation on the water, which included barges
that are towed.

However, this ruling was applied only to determine which court had
jurisdiction over a case.

--
Cheers,

Bruce

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:45:29 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010695.pdf
.....................

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'.

It doesn't say this and it also doesn't indicate this.

In connection with the, What's a 'vessel'? question, it ruled merely
that, for the purposes of the case, that is, that 'the point' at issue
in this respect was merely whether for the purpose of determining what
may be the subject of federal admiralty jurisdiction in a foreclosure
of a maritime lien proceeding in admiralty, the federal law definition
of 'vessel' and not what states variously may adopt and use for their
state law purposes governs. Hardly interesting and not novel.

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.

This is a state law issue enforceable by the state as a matter of
state law and does not implicate federal court admiralty jurisdiction
in a maritime lien foreclosure proceeding prosecuted under federal
maritime law.


Ah, but that's where you're clearly in error. The fact remains that
federal admiralty law takes precedence over any contradictory state
statutes. The case in question demonstrates that.

Compounding your more basic because particular factual and logical
error, summarized below, what you say is The fact is largely correct
but the inferences you purport to draw from that The fact are a
classic example of question begging. You are correct that federal
admiralty law takes precedence over contradictory state law, BUT only
when/where (i) admiralty law applies and (ii) state or other local law
enacted under color of state law actually contradicts what federal
admiralty law, when where applicable, provides.

The infirmity with what presumably you would ascribe to yourself as
reasoning, why you're clearly in error, is that you have not shown and
it is not the conditions 'i' and 'ii or, for that matter, either one
applies to the scenario you've been discussing including to the 11th
circuit court of appeals 'City of Rivera Beach, etc.' ruling cited
above and discussed earlier in this thread.

Here is something for your to read.

http://www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/...sanitation.pdf

I've long been familiar with the authorities discussed in this piece
and, without discussing the accuracy and partial inaccuracy or not of
it discussion, it will suffice merely to note the following -

i. The Fla MSD regulations to which you referred do not
'contradict' federal admiralty law and you merely assume and assert
but do not demonstrate that they do.

ii. Even more basically as relevant to the discussion in this news
group thread is that the federal Clean Water Act anti-pollution and
anti-discharge requirements as relevant to this thread are not
confined to what is or is not a 'vessel' so that, whether or not the
federal definition of 'vessel' for some purposes of admiralty law does
or does not apply, bickering about what is and is not a 'vessel' for
MSD requirement purposes is actually beside the point. In other
words, these provisions of the federal Clean Water Act apply not only
to 'vessels' and instead, or more precisely in addition, to 'a vessel
or other floating craft' - and presumably you would acknowledge that,
whether a 'houseboat' is a 'vessel' or not, a housboat is a 'floating
craft'.

........................
Get the drift?

I do. But quite apparently you do not.