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.

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

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.