Floating home is NOT a boat, says US Supreme Court

That's one big can of worms they opened, and I expect it will make it hard for a lot of liveaboards to find a place to dock. Who needs a tenant they can't evict. All a tenant need do is disable his motors and his case ends up in a different jurisdiction. He could go back an forth with that one for years while paying no rent. Today the motors are disabled, it's a house. Tomorrow the motors are working, it's a boat.

I doubt that. I suspect they would call that a broken down boat and not a house. A boat with disabled motors was still built, and used, to carry passengers on the water. The only characteristic floating homes share with boats is they both float. I do agree this will probably make it harder to park them at marinas.

Many, if not most 'floating homes' share a hull with another purpose. If I were a deadbeat trying to forestall eviction I could bounce it between jurisdictions for a long time while not paying rent. Not saying I'd win in the end. Just that I could stay there long enough that, were I a marina owner, I'd only want A+ liveaboards.

Your first post has a totally different tune. And, it talks about someone taking a functioning boat and making it non-functioning to claim not a boat, then back to functioning, which is not the case in this court case.

I think this ruling will muddy the waters a bit. But the ruling is clearing describing essentially a floating barge home, not boat. No means of propulsion, steering, engine, or generator. It's basically a barge, with a house built on it.

Exactly. A barge is considered a vessel. A vessel need not have propulsion, steering, engine or generator. This ruling seems to be based on on a particular "house", but is vague enough to have broad implications. Like I said, not that I'd expect a win in the end, just that the waters are muddied enough to bounce it between jurisdictions for long enough to be a major hassle for marina owners. What immediately comes to my mind is a derelict looking sailboat, with a guy living on it, that I saw on one of the canals off Las Olas years ago. It was so encrusted in barnacles that it obviously hadn't moved for years. He could easily make the argument that it was incapable of and wasn't owned with the intention of moving, therefore eviction should be handle by the local municipality. But of course he could argue that it was in fact a boat if he got close to losing in that court. Where a contested eviction can easily take 6 to 9 months he could drag it out for a couple of years.

Once again, not saying it would give a winning argument. Just enough of an argument for a deadbeat with a lawyer to delay eviction longer and cause the landlord a lot more hassles and expense. That translates into landlords being a lot more picky about who they let in. Over the past few years I've known a lot of people who have lost their rental (investment) properties because the cost of evicting a non-paying tenant was too much to bear. This adds another layer to it.

Easy enough to get this protection - just write a possessory lien provision into the lease. Marina's can protect themselves with a good laywer. What happens all to often is a marina copies some other marina's contract and think they've covered their bases. Most of the time the contract they have copied is nothing more than a copy of someone elses copy. Just saying, there are always methods to protect your interests.

Sorry for the double post - I obviously am computer challenged!

RER

Agreed, but a well written contract can put the law on your side. In this instance, without knowing all the facts, it seems the marina "resorted" to the maritime law because they didn't have the simple language I described. Case closed once a properly drafted possessory lien is shown to the court in a valid non payment case. Of course, to be effective in practice, the vessel/house needs to be worth something. All to often they are derelicts, and no marina wants to take possession of that problem.

The question isn't what to write into a contract. That's the easy part. The question is which court has jurisdiction. No contract will cure that since the can of worms is now open. Again, we're not talking about who will win. That's a forgone conclusion. The question is will it take 6 months and $5,000 or 18 months and $15,000 to get them out. Anybody here ever deal with a welfare tenant who has decided to squat in your property? The eviction process can easily be dragged out for 9 months or more and cost you a small fortune in legal fees. Now add bouncing jurisdictions to the mix.

NYCAP

Agreed, but it has to be carefully drafted - we have all seen a lot of "budget" contracts that are like swiss cheese when a party tries to enforce them. For example, your question as to which court has jusrisdiction is always written into a well drafted contract. It should never be left unstated. A well drafted contract is crafted from the point of view that everything will go wrong, so cover it. If these type of provisions are left out, then the court has to get involved in deciding the matter. The more things that are left out, the more the court gets involved, consuming time and often leading to bad results. Again, without knowing the facts, I don't think the instant contract contained the proper possessory lien language and that's why they resorted to the maritime law as an after thought - otherwise, this case never gets to the Supreme Court of the USA?

As for your other example about the "squatting" residential tenant, the courts are not too quick to evict someone from their home and shelter, partially due to some past practices of landlards, but a well written contract will shorten the time it takes. A commercial tenant never gets that "extra" protection in my modest experience.

Remember that although the squatter may be sitting on his asset, it really doesn't take much effort to tow him out onto a public dock and leave him there for the public officials to sort out.

You can't do that with a house.

Just a thought.

This may not be the correct thread for the following question, but as it is a legal question, I pose it here: Is it legal for the Florida Marine patrol to ask someone to leave Rybovich's basin? I came into the basin at Rybovich from the ICW, did not touch the dock, when a Florida Marine patrol asked me to leave.( I was in a perfectly maintained 1937 52 foot Jhn Hacker commuter, not the usual ride for a terrorist)
Best,
Maldwin

What about how this impacts financing and tax considerations?