568 U.S. 115, 133 S. Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604, 2013 AMC 1 (2013), on remand, 672 F. Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2016)
In 2002 Fane Lozman purchased a 60-foot by 12-foot floating home consisting of a house-like plywood structure with French doors on three sides that contained a sitting room, bedroom, closet, bathroom, kitchen, and a stairway leading to a second level with office space, kept afloat by empty bilge space underneath the main floor.1 After buying the home, Lozman 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 before arranging in 2006 for it to be towed a further 70 miles to a marina owned by the City of Riviera Beach, where he kept it docked.2
After disputes with Lozman and unsuccessful efforts to evict him from the marina, the City brought a federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home. It sought a maritime lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass.3 Lozman, acting pro se, moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the district court lacked admiralty jurisdiction.4 After summary judgment proceedings, the district court found the floating home to be a vessel, concluded that admiralty jurisdiction was proper, conducted a bench trial, and awarded the City $3,039.88 for dockage along with $1 in nominal damages for trespass.5
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the home was a vessel because it was capable of movement over water despite the owner’s subjective intent to remain moored indefinitely at a dock.6 Lozman sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted in light of differing views among the Circuits about application of the term capable.7 The District Court ordered the floating home sold to satisfy the City’s judgment; the City bought the home at public auction and subsequently had it destroyed, but prior to the sale the district court had ordered the City to post a $25,000 bond to secure Lozman’s value in the vessel.8
Whether the destruction of the floating home rendered the case moot?9
A case remains justiciable and is not moot when a bond has been posted prior to destruction of the res to secure the prevailing party's right to monetary relief if the appeal succeeds.10
Yes. The District Court ordered the City to post a $25,000 bond to secure Lozman’s value in the vessel before the public auction and subsequent destruction of the floating home.11 This bond ensures that Lozman can obtain monetary relief if he ultimately prevails on the merits of his jurisdictional challenge.12
The case is not moot.13
Whether Lozman’s floating home constitutes a vessel under 1 U.S.C. §3?14
Under 1 U.S.C. §3 a floating structure is a vessel only if a reasonable observer, examining its physical characteristics and activities, would conclude that it was designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.15
No. Lozman’s floating home had no rudder or steering mechanism, featured an unraked hull with a rectangular bottom only ten inches below the waterline, lacked any independent capacity to generate or store electricity, and possessed no self-propulsion.16 It was towed significant distances only twice in seven years and carried nothing beyond its own furnishings, the owner’s personal effects, and personnel needed for safety during those limited moves.17 These objective facts demonstrate that the structure was not designed to any practical degree for water transportation.18
Lozman’s floating home does not constitute a vessel under 1 U.S.C. §3.19
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Kennedy
Justice Sotomayor dissented from the majority's conclusion that the floating home was not a vessel.20 She agreed that the Eleventh Circuit's test was overinclusive and that subjective intentions play no role in the vessel analysis.21 However, she argued that the majority's reasonable-observer formulation introduces subjectivity by relying on aesthetic factors such as windows and doors that bear no relation to maritime transport.22
She further contended that the underdeveloped record left open whether the craft had actually carried large appliances and other home contents over water on its voyages.23 Therefore, she would have remanded the case for additional factfinding rather than deciding the question on the existing record.24