Beech v. FV Wishbone
113 F. Supp. 3d 1203
S.D. Ala.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Beech, Tenley Warhurst, and Leith claim maritime liens totaling $54,000 for services/supplies performed or provided to the fishing vessel F/V WISHBONE in May 2013 while Davy Jones Wishing Charters, LLC (Davy Jones LLC) had the vessel under a lease-to-purchase arrangement.
- Beech performed cabin renovations in exchange for an alleged $25,000 ownership interest; he treated the work as an investment and never billed for it.
- Tenley Warhurst funneled personal and law-practice funds and items to the vessel (loans, equipment, household items), often commingled with marital and firm finances; she expected to be “vested” in the venture.
- Leith invested settlement money and installed security cameras, participating in business meetings and viewing his contributions as an investment expecting profit.
- Davy Jones LLC never closed on the vessel; B & D Maritime later sold the vessel to Skipper’s Landing in October 2013, which purchased as a bona fide purchaser without notice of plaintiffs’ unrecorded liens. Plaintiffs filed this in rem suit May 29, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are "strangers to the vessel" and thus eligible for maritime liens | Plaintiffs assert they provided necessaries and may assert liens for unpaid services/supplies | Skipper’s Landing argues plaintiffs were insiders/joint venturers (investors/part owners) with Davy Jones LLC and therefore cannot hold maritime liens | Court: Plaintiffs were not strangers; they were joint venturers/insiders and cannot assert maritime liens |
| Whether plaintiffs’ unrecorded maritime lien claims are barred by laches | Plaintiffs contend notice existed (pointing to related Baldwin County complaint) and that recording is not mandatory | Skipper’s Landing argues plaintiffs unreasonably delayed (one year), did not record liens, did not arrest vessel, and purchaser was prejudiced by lack of notice | Court: Laches bars the claims — plaintiffs failed to exercise the high degree of diligence required and Skipper’s Landing was prejudiced |
| Whether Baldwin County complaint put purchaser on notice of plaintiffs’ claims | Plaintiffs claim the state-court filing provided constructive notice of claims related to repairs/advances | Defendant: The state complaint did not name plaintiffs nor identify maritime liens; purchaser had no actual or constructive notice | Court: Baldwin County complaint did not reasonably put Skipper’s Landing on notice of plaintiffs’ lien claims |
| Prejudice to bona fide purchaser | Plaintiffs argue purchaser could have investigated more | Defendant: Purchaser paid $60,000 and later spent ~$75,000 repairing vessel without knowledge of $54,000 in claimed liens; memories/records faded | Court: Prejudice was established (economic loss and evidentiary impairment); supports laches defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. M/V "GULF STREAM FALCON", 186 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 1999) (joint venturers cannot claim maritime liens; a stranger relies on vessel credit)
- Fulcher’s Point Pride Seafood, Inc. v. M/V Theodora Maria, 935 F.2d 208 (11th Cir. 1991) (factors for joint venture status; joint venturers not entitled to maritime liens)
- Sasportes v. M/V Sol de Copacabana, 581 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1978) (illustrative standard: one who looks, acts, and profits like an owner cannot claim maritime lien)
- John W. Stone Oil Distributor, Inc. v. M/V Miss Bern, 663 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Ala. 1987) (laches can bar maritime liens against bona fide purchasers; high diligence required for unrecorded liens)
- Tagaropulos, S.A. v. S.S. Santa Paula, 502 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1974) (holder of unrecorded lien against bona fide purchaser must exercise a high degree of diligence)
- Mullane v. Chambers, 438 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2006) (maritime lien doctrine protects strangers to the vessel; not owners or those controlling the vessel)