547 F. App'x 923
11th Cir.2013Background
- Evans, pro se, appeals a bench trial judgment in favor of Santiago on an in rem admiralty claim over a vessel sale.
- Evans contested (i) admiralty jurisdiction, (ii) whether the contract for sale of the vessel was void or voidable, and (iii) whether Santiago fraudulently misled the court.
- Santiago contends Evans lacks standing on appeal because Evans did not hold possession, and HH & DD Holdings of Florida, LLC settled with Santiago after trial.
- The district court held the contract for sale void as against public policy and within admiralty jurisdiction to determine merits.
- The court cited Florida Bar Rules and Chandris to conclude a contingent-fee-like sale between a lawyer and client violated public policy and was void.
- The court declined to consider Evans’s claim of fraud on the court for misrepresentation about a Bill of Sale, noting Evans did not raise that argument below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing on appeal | Evans argues Santiago’s suit harmed him and he has standing to appeal. | Santiago argues Evans lacked standing since Evans did not possess the vessel. | Evans has standing; district ruling adverse to Evans’s interests suffices. |
| Admiralty jurisdiction proper | The contract defense undermines admiralty jurisdiction. | Amended complaint shows admiralty claim seeking vessel possession; exceptions not met. | Jurisdiction proper; no basis to dismiss admiralty claim. |
| Void vs voidable contract for sale | Contract was enforceable in sale of vessel. | Contract void as against public policy under Florida law (Rules Regulating Fla. Bar). | Contract void as against public policy; unenforceable. |
| Fraud on the court by misrepresentation | Santiago misrepresented facts about a Bill of Sale. | Evans did not raise this argument below; cannot be considered. | Not considered; issue not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marine Coatings of Ala., Inc. v. United States, 792 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1986) (admiralty jurisdiction limits and when to entertain such claims)
- Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (in rem admiralty proceeding; merits-focused evaluation of possession)
- William P. Brooks Constr. Co. v. Guthrie, 614 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1980) (contractual defense does not deprive district court of admiralty jurisdiction)
- Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (Florida law voids certain lawyer-client business transactions against public policy)
- American Casualty Co. v. Coastal Caisson Drill Co., 542 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1989) (contracts contravening public policy can be void)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (precedent of Fifth Circuit decisions prior to Oct. 1, 1981 adopting)