I'm not sure what the issue is, according the
legal precedent that you stated, it was the will of the
Florida legislature to broaden the definition of the residence to the maximum extent possible rather than enumerate each type of specific dwelling. Therefore you have stare decisis, established precedent, that the court must follow. Simply finding popularity of
living aboard isn't relevant, what is relevant is the ruling and interpretation of the
Florida constitution. As it is a Florida constitutional issue, the time that has past since the past interpretation is also irrelevant. The purpose of the law was to prevent a persons only dwelling, whatever that may be, from being seized by a court for the purposes of paying a lien or bankruptcy. Can a
live-aboard boat be seized by the
government, yes, for a variety of purposes, including being "susceptible" for violating the trading with the enemies act, there is a long
history of traditional protections afforded to home owners not applying to boats, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not your home, which is your
boat, is protected from seizure by a bank or court during bankruptcy in Florida, and precedent states the court must interpret the definition of dwelling to the broadest extent possible, even if no one had ever lived on a boat except you.