This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D bought a 60- by 12-foot floating home that consisted of a house-like plywood structure with French doors on three sides. It contained a sitting room, bedroom, closet, bathroom, and kitchen, along with a stairway leading to a second level with office space. n empty bilge space underneath the main floor kept it afloat. D had it towed about 200 miles to North Bay Village, Florida, where he moored it, and then twice more had it towed between nearby marinas. In 2006 D had the home towed a further 70 miles to a marina owned by P where he kept it docked. P and D did not get along. P decided to evict D from the marina. P brought this federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home. It sought a maritime lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass. D claimed the court lacked admiralty jurisdiction. The court found that the floating home was a “vessel” and concluded that admiralty jurisdiction was consequently proper. The judge awarded P $3,039.88 for dockage along with $1 in nominal damages for trespass. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the home was a “vessel” because it was “capable” of movement over water and the owner's subjective intent to remain moored “indefinitely” at a dock could not show the contrary. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.