## Facts

- Fane Lozman owned a two-story floating home that functioned as a residence and contained a bedroom, bathroom, sitting room, and office, with ordinary windows and French doors.
- The structure was built from plywood and sat on an empty bilge space that kept it afloat.
- The floating home had no self-propulsion, no steering mechanism, and lacked common vessel features such as bilge pumps, lifeboats, or other typical maritime equipment.
- Lozman had the floating home towed among four Florida marinas, staying at each for varying lengths of time.
- On one occasion it was towed about 70 miles; on another it was towed about 200 miles.
- Lozman eventually had the home towed to a marina owned by the City of Riviera Beach, Florida, where it was docked.
- Lozman and the City had a series of disputes, including the City’s unsuccessful efforts to remove him from the marina.
- The City filed a federal in rem action against the floating home in admiralty, seeking to enforce a maritime lien for dockage fees and also seeking damages tied to alleged trespass.
- Lozman moved to dismiss for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, arguing the floating home was not a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3 and therefore could not be sued in admiralty as a vessel.
- The district court held the floating home was a “vessel,” exercised admiralty jurisdiction, awarded the City dockage fees and nominal damages, and ordered the structure sold.
- The City purchased the floating home at a U.S. Marshal’s sale and later destroyed it; the district court had required the City to post a bond.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that because the structure could float and be towed, and its shore connections did not make movement impossible, it was “capable of being used” for transportation on water.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the floating home qualified as a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3.

## Issues

1. Whether the case became moot after the City purchased and destroyed the floating home following the district court’s judgment.
2. Whether Lozman’s floating home was a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3, such that a federal court could exercise admiralty jurisdiction over an in rem action against it.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot, in part because a bond provided a possible source of monetary relief tied to the challenged judgment.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and held the floating home was not a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3.
- The Court ruled that a structure is not a vessel unless a reasonable observer, looking to its physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the floating home looked and functioned like a stationary residence rather than a craft built for water transportation.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
- Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kennedy.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty jurisdiction over an in rem proceeding depends on whether the defendant property is a “vessel” within the meaning of 1 U.S.C. § 3.
- Under 1 U.S.C. § 3, the term “vessel” does not extend to every floating structure that can be towed; the statutory phrase “capable of being used” is applied in a practical way.
- A structure is a “vessel” only if a reasonable observer, considering the structure’s physical characteristics and activities, would view it as designed to a practical degree for transporting people or things over water.
- A house-like floating structure that lacks features commonly associated with water transportation and is used as a residence may fall outside § 3 even if it can float and be moved by towing.
- Post-judgment events (including sale or destruction of the property) do not necessarily moot an appeal when effective relief remains available, such as recovery tied to a bond or other monetary remedy.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Lozman’s floating home was not a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3 because, based on its design and real-world use, a reasonable observer would not view it as built for transporting people or things over water; accordingly, the federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over the City’s in rem action, and the Court reversed and remanded.


Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 568 U.S. 115, 133 S. Ct. 735, 184 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2013)