Supreme Court: Home Isn't a Boat

[Aussiesuede]

A floating home is not a vessel to be regulated under federal admiralty law, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a colorful decision that featured photographs and the first dissenting opinion in an argued case since the term started in October. Structures deemed to be vessels are subject to federal laws and regulations, including ones concerning safety, employment and taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us...rule.html?_r=0

[sailorboy1]

Not really any application to us boaters.

Wonder what the floating house owner had an issue with: flares, lifevests, etc.

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Not really any application to us boaters.

This seems to open the previously settled question of whether a de-masted sailboat without a propeller or oars is or is not a vessel.

[Boatguy30]

As a Florida boater, this kind of thing sucks. It will just get the cities more fired up to screw all live aboards so they don't have to deal with a "supreme" court case in the future.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

As a Florida boater, this kind of thing sucks. It will just get the cities more fired up to screw all live aboards so they don't have to deal with a "supreme" court case in the future.

What makes you say that? Do most live aboards live in a floating house, or do they live on a boat?

And if a floating house isn't the same as a boat does that now make it a house with the same protection far as rules go, for land based houses? For example can the CG or harbor patrol just board your "house" for a "safety insection"?

[zboss]

Also... does this mean that the houseboat (funny huh?) is now under the jurisdiction of the local housing regulations? What would be the implication - do they need to follow new or different electrical and plumbing rules, fire codes, etc?

[SURV69]

"Not really any application to us boaters."

agreed . . .

. . . hmm?

Boaters who have fully functional engines and don't stay anywhere long without moving, might not have a problem. But what about boaters(liveaboards), who don't have a mechanical(or working), means of propulsion, who like to "anchor-out", for a while?

The problems I see coming, are municipalities and states that will now review this ruling and see, within this ruling, what they want to see.

State AG's and city solicitors/attorneys, tend to be very, "very", biased in their viewpoints and often seem to actually see/read things in a very different, often very perverse manner . . . depending on what they(or their bosses), want.

Floating house have windage, and left to the elements, will go where the wind blows them . . . no wind . . . no go, unless someone adds a motor to the transom.

Aside from the added benefit of a keel and rudder, sailboats also move at the whims of the wind, unless someone adds motor . . . .


I don't know where I'm going with this . . . I'm not really trying to go anywhere with this.

What I am saying is, if there is any small miniscule, unintelligible, unintended, not fully spelled out verbiage in this ruling . . .

. . . then someone, somewhere, is going to apply some ridiculously mis-interpreted, part of this ruling in some ridiculously perverse manner to do something that will cost someone(I'm thinking a live-a-board sailor with no mechanical means of propulsion), lots of money.

[rivonia]

Why are American laws so complicated ?

Peter

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by rivonia

Why are American laws so complicated ?

Peter

easiest question 've seen on CF in a while

It is because we have a LOT of lawyers and they need something to do!

[Blue Stocking]

Look up the basic differences on the philosophies of common law .v. the napoleonic law, and how these apply to the actions of the individual, and the processes followed by the authorities to regulate these actions, and you may get a better idea.

Houseboats/liveaboards are different from floating homes.

[westsail374]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

easiest question 've seen on CF in a while

It is because we have a LOT of lawyers and they need something to do!

Quite right. Every year, twice as many graduate from law school as there are openings. Dog eat dog.

Yummy.

[Blue Crab]

No worries. The government will protect us.

[SURV69]

Laws are complicated so they can be subject to "interpretation", and be a little "pliable", or "adjusted", to meet specific needs.

Or . . . mainly so criminals(but mostly politicians), can claim they acted on their interpretation and not with criminal intent(great for politicians).

One hat doesn't fit all heads.

[rivonia]

I like the reply- so many lawyers. The lawyers that I have met on my travels are all VERY wealthy. Nuff sed

Peter

[zboss]

Originally Posted by rivonia

I like the reply- so many lawyers. The lawyers that I have met on my travels are all VERY wealthy. Nuff sed

Peter

I just got from Kenya - a country that just passed a new constitution in 2009. As I understand in laymans terms, before the constitution there were very few lawyers. In fact, so few lawyers that if you wanted to accomplish anything that required legal assistance, you were out of luck. Got your arm chopped off in a machine do to someone else's fault? Too bad! No lawyers to sue. Work it out on your own.

Now, they have more lawyers and the economy is booming. Workers have legal protection and whatnot.

Think of this as you will... but having some lawyers is probably better than having none.