If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck (Donald, friend of Mickey?…Ok, just go with it), and quacks like a duck…it must be a duck.

So, if it looks like a yacht, sounds like a yacht, but doesn’t have engines and is in a dry-dock, is it a vessel for the purposes of the maritime lien statute, and more importantly, for in rem jurisdiction?

A new admiralty case from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals answers this question:  YES.  The case is Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht and can be found here.

Practitioners Note:  This case has a very comprehensive history of the Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 31341–31343.

The facts of this case are simple.  Yacht goes into dry-dock for extensive renovations.  After some time and repairs, the owner stops paying.  So, is a high and dry yacht, without engines, props, furniture, generators, etc still a vessel for the purposes of the maritime lien act and in rem jurisdiction?

The court explained the applicable test:

In deciding whether a watercraft is a vessel, “the focus . . . is the craft’s capability, not its present use or station.” Bd. of Comm’rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans, 535 F.3d 1299, 1310 (11th Cir. 2008). The dispositive question is “whether the watercraft’s use as a means of transportation on water is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one.” Id. (quoting Stewart, 543 U.S. at 496, 125 S. Ct. at 1118) (quotation marks omitted); Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Holmes v. Atlanta Sounding Co., 437 F.3d 441, 448 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Under § 3, a ‘vessel’ is watercraft practically capable of maritime transportation regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment(quotations omitted)).

So, despite removal of her engines and the renovations, the yacht remained a vessel.  Ergo, the Maritime Lien statute applied and the dry-dock was entitled to arrest the vessel in rem to satisfy its lien.