It started as a catty quarrel over a houseboat, a waterfront proxy battle between boat-owning gadfly Fane Lozman and the Riviera Beach City Council. Somehow, it has ended up in the highest court in the land.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, and a mopey, vindictive battle between a skilled agitator and the city officials who loathed him will be decided by nine justices who four months ago were weighing the future of America’s health care system.
However the justices rule, and whatever its repercussions for the marine industry, the battle has cost Riviera Beach taxpayers thousands of dollars. Just one example: All five city council members, plus at least two other city officials, were planning to fly to Washington to watch today’s oral arguments in person. How the case got to Washington is a tale worth recounting.
When Riviera Beach decided in 2006 to allow private redevelopment of the city-owned marina, Mr. Lozman, who lived in a houseboat docked there, sued to stop it. The redevelopment effort collapsed, and around that time the city decided to evict Mr. Lozman. Acting as his own attorney, Mr. Lozman defeated the city in state court. A few months later, Riviera Beach saw fit to tighten its rules for boats docked at the marina.
Mr. Lozman was unwilling or unable to make his houseboat comply with the new rules, so the city went to federal court to put a lien on the boat and have it seized, a drastic action permitted against boats (even ones that are residences) under federal maritime law. A judge approved the request, and the boat was confiscated. In a vindictive touch, the city bought the boat at a public auction and had it destroyed.
Beneath all this there is a significant legal issue: whether Mr. Lozman’s houseboat should be considered a vessel. How the Supreme Court decides could have major repercussions for the regulation of boats across the country, and the case is being closely watched by marine industries.
Federal law defines a vessel as a “watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” Mr. Lozman argued that his houseboat was not a “vessel,” and therefore not subject to seizure, because it had no engine, was not built for transportation and was permanently docked at the marina. It was, he argued, “a residence that just happened to float.”
The appeals court disagreed, saying that since the houseboat was on water and had traveled on water to and from the city marina, it met the definition of a vessel.
In a legal brief, Mr. Lozman’s attorney argues that that definition is too broad: “Driftwood, for example, is capable of being pulled over water without sinking, as are floating bridges, swimming platforms, doors removed from their hinges, and innumerable other objects made of wood or plastic.”
Indeed, defining a vessel as Mr. Lozman suggests seems sensible. Far more sensible, certainly, than his case’s bizarre journey.
By Andrew Marra
Palm Beach Post
Editorial: Riviera Beach before high court on watery issue
October 01, 2012
Comments are off
It started as a catty quarrel over a houseboat, a waterfront proxy battle between boat-owning gadfly Fane Lozman and the Riviera Beach City Council. Somehow, it has ended up in the highest court in the land.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, and a mopey, vindictive battle between a skilled agitator and the city officials who loathed him will be decided by nine justices who four months ago were weighing the future of America’s health care system.
However the justices rule, and whatever its repercussions for the marine industry, the battle has cost Riviera Beach taxpayers thousands of dollars. Just one example: All five city council members, plus at least two other city officials, were planning to fly to Washington to watch today’s oral arguments in person. How the case got to Washington is a tale worth recounting.
When Riviera Beach decided in 2006 to allow private redevelopment of the city-owned marina, Mr. Lozman, who lived in a houseboat docked there, sued to stop it. The redevelopment effort collapsed, and around that time the city decided to evict Mr. Lozman. Acting as his own attorney, Mr. Lozman defeated the city in state court. A few months later, Riviera Beach saw fit to tighten its rules for boats docked at the marina.
Mr. Lozman was unwilling or unable to make his houseboat comply with the new rules, so the city went to federal court to put a lien on the boat and have it seized, a drastic action permitted against boats (even ones that are residences) under federal maritime law. A judge approved the request, and the boat was confiscated. In a vindictive touch, the city bought the boat at a public auction and had it destroyed.
Beneath all this there is a significant legal issue: whether Mr. Lozman’s houseboat should be considered a vessel. How the Supreme Court decides could have major repercussions for the regulation of boats across the country, and the case is being closely watched by marine industries.
Federal law defines a vessel as a “watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” Mr. Lozman argued that his houseboat was not a “vessel,” and therefore not subject to seizure, because it had no engine, was not built for transportation and was permanently docked at the marina. It was, he argued, “a residence that just happened to float.”
The appeals court disagreed, saying that since the houseboat was on water and had traveled on water to and from the city marina, it met the definition of a vessel.
In a legal brief, Mr. Lozman’s attorney argues that that definition is too broad: “Driftwood, for example, is capable of being pulled over water without sinking, as are floating bridges, swimming platforms, doors removed from their hinges, and innumerable other objects made of wood or plastic.”
Indeed, defining a vessel as Mr. Lozman suggests seems sensible. Far more sensible, certainly, than his case’s bizarre journey.
By Andrew Marra
Palm Beach Post
Recent News
The Fane Lozman Story
This is a true story of a persistent and tenacious underdog who fought against the governmental seizure of 2200 homes and businesses in 2006 only to see that same government arrest and destroy his floating home three years later, for an alleged failure to pay one month’s rent at the marina. Fane Lozman did not give up but continued the improbable climb from a county court eviction case to the US Supreme Court.
