## Facts

- Stolthaven Houston, Inc. operated a marine terminal and provided berth space at its dock in Houston, Texas.
- The vessel **The Rachel B** was owned by **Zarepta**.
- The Rachel B was chartered to **Norfolk L.P.** pursuant to a charter agreement involving Zarepta, Norfolk, and **Hiltveit Associates** (Norfolk’s managing agent).
- The charter agreement stated it was a **bareboat (demise) charter**, granting Norfolk full possession and control of the vessel.
- The charter placed responsibility on Norfolk for the vessel’s crewing and day-to-day operation, including the vessel’s supply, operation, fueling, and repairs.
- Zarepta retained limited owner rights, including the right to inspect the vessel, receive notice of changes in the vessel’s business, and approve certain insured repairs.
- While The Rachel B was at Stolthaven’s berth, the **U.S. Coast Guard detained** the vessel and required **mandatory repairs**.
- Because the vessel remained at the berth longer than planned, Stolthaven alleged it could not service its next scheduled customer and suffered lost-business damages.
- Stolthaven filed an admiralty complaint against Zarepta and Hiltveit seeking to recover those damages.
- At the time Stolthaven sought relief, the court was not aware the vessel was operating under a bareboat charter; the court issued an **ex parte Rule B maritime attachment** against Zarepta’s assets.
- After the attachment issued, Zarepta moved to vacate it, arguing that the bareboat charter meant Stolthaven had **no prima facie admiralty claim against Zarepta** for losses tied to the vessel’s detention and repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether, given a bareboat (demise) charter placing full possession and operational responsibility on the charterer, Stolthaven stated a prima facie admiralty claim against the titled owner (Zarepta) for delay-related losses arising while the vessel was under charterer control.
2. Whether a Rule B maritime attachment of Zarepta’s property must be vacated when the plaintiff cannot show a prima facie maritime claim against Zarepta.

## Decision

- The court **granted** Zarepta’s motion to vacate the Rule B attachment.
- The court found the charter was a true **bareboat charter** transferring possession and operational control to Norfolk, making Norfolk the **owner pro hac vice** for purposes of responsibility for the vessel’s operation and repairs during the relevant period.
- The court concluded Stolthaven did not show a **prima facie maritime claim** against Zarepta based on the alleged delay caused by Coast Guard detention and required repairs.
- The owner’s retained rights (inspection, notice of business changes, and approval of certain insured repairs) were not enough to amount to the kind of operational control that would support liability for the complained-of conduct.
- Because Rule B relief depends on a valid maritime claim against the defendant whose property is attached, the attachment against Zarepta’s assets could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A **bareboat (demise) charter** transfers full possession and control of the vessel to the charterer; the charterer becomes the **owner pro hac vice** and generally bears responsibility for the vessel’s operation, crewing, and maintenance while the charter is in effect.
- The titled owner is generally **not liable** for operational acts or omissions during a bareboat charter absent a separate basis for liability, such as the owner’s own wrongful conduct or meaningful retained operational control.
- Owner protections commonly found in demise charters—such as rights to inspect, receive information about the vessel’s employment, or approve certain repairs—do not, without more, convert the arrangement into owner operation.
- A plaintiff seeking a **Rule B maritime attachment** must show, among other requirements, a **prima facie valid maritime claim** against the defendant whose assets are attached; if that showing fails, the attachment should be vacated.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the Rule B attachment against Zarepta because the Rachel B was operating under a bareboat charter that placed possession and day-to-day operational responsibility on Norfolk, leaving Stolthaven without a prima facie admiralty claim against Zarepta to support attachment of Zarepta’s property.


Stolthaven Houston, Inc. v. The Rachel B, 2008 WL 2854278, 2008 AMC 2067 (2008)