Mullane v. Chambers, Nos. 05-1173, 05-1174. There are some strange issues today with the First’s website (e.g. linking to the wrong cases). First of all, there are two lower court opinions documenting a fairly complex battle over who has title to a boat. Mullane v. Chambers, 349 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Mass. 2004); Mullane v. Chambers, 206 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D. Mass. 2002); and another case from the First. Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 2003). However, post-trial, there is essentially one issue: whether a party is entitled to a maritime lien under 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a) (liens "goods or services . . . necessary to the continued operation of the vessel,") and the equitable “rule of advance” (protecting a person that “pays for the goods and services that would have given rise to a statutory maritime lien, on an assurance that the vessel will be responsible for the debt”) can be invoked by then-owners of the vessel that secured a discharge of a mortgage that encumbered the boat. The court also holds that it was proper to order the payment of storage charges (during the course of litigation) even though the owners posted a bond to regain the possession of the vessel. The court reasoned that since the vessel was damaged during its seizure, and couldn’t be used for most of the time, they were entitled to storage costs. The court notes in a footnote that maritime liens and equitable liens are different monsters.
Rich people have such exciting lives.
Comments