UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2241

HATTERAS/CABO YACHTS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company , Plaintiff

– Appellee , and BRUNSWICK CORPORATION; VERSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC , Defendants

– Appellees , v. M/Y EPIC (OFFICIAL NUMBER 747618, HIN: US

- HATHR3021617), her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel, etc., in rem; ACQUAVIVA, LTD., a foreign company , Defendants

– Appellants , and
DANIEL SPISSO , Intervenor/Defendant

– Appellant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 4:17−cv−00025−BR )

Submitted : November 22, 2022 Decided: February 15, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 52 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: J. Elizabeth Graddy, GRADDY LAW LLC, Atlanta, Georgia; William F. Rhod e s, WILLIAM F. RHODES, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Appellants. Krista Fowler Acuña, Elisha M. Sullivan, Michael J. Dono, HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 53 PER CURIAM:
This case arises from Hatteras/Cabo Yachts, LLC’s provision of storage and
maintenance to the motor yacht Epic ( “ M/Y Epic”) , following a fire that occurred on its maiden voyage. Daniel Spisso had just purchased and taken possession of the yach t from
Hatteras

. After the fire, he attempted to revoke the purchase of the yacht , claiming its fire
system failed to operate properly. He left the damaged yacht in Hatteras’ s possession but
refused to allow Hatteras to complete the repairs covered under warranty

. As a result, the yacht was stored at Hatteras’ s facility for approximately five months. Then, a llegedly performing a “sea trial,” or stated differently, taking the boat out to a ssess its condition , Spisso sailed away on the yacht without paying for its storage and maintenance

. In response, Hatteras filed a claim in the Eastern District of North Carolina, asserting a maritime lien in the amount of the maritime necessaries 1 and seek ing recovery
of th at same amount

. Spisso and Acquaviva , Ltd., a single

- asset corporation Spisso formed to own the yacht, counter claimed for breach of contract, breach of warranties, violations of the Magnuson

- Moss Warranty Act, negligence, conversi on, wrongful arrest and abuse of process, bad faith, violations of North Carolina law and unjust enrichment. 2

1 Under maritime law, “ necessaries ” is a statutorily defined term that “includes repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a dry dock or marine railway.” 46 U.S.C

. § 31301 (4)

. Here , Hatteras ’s claim for necessaries included the provision of “dockage, electrical power, line handling and associated inspections, washing, and transportati on expenses, including Captains’ fees.” J.A. 47.

2 Prior to trial, the court granted Hatteras’ s motion for summary judgment in part, leaving Hatteras’ s claim for maritime nec essarie s and defendants’ counterclaims for breach USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 3 of 54 Following a bench trial, t he district court held that Spisso’s attempted revocation was not justifiable. It also held that Hatteras was not liab le on any counterclaims and awarded Hatteras $17,382.25 , plus prejudgment interest, for the maritime necessaries
Hatteras provided to the M/ Y Epic

. M/Y Epic (as a party in rem) , Acquaviva and Spisso appeal the award. Appellants argue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ; misapprehended the applicable provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code ; misapprehended the standards for Appellants’ negligence claim; mi sapprehended the requirements of express warranty; misapplied the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and misapprehended the law governing relief available to Spisso. Following a bench trial, w e
review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and factual findings under a clearly
erroneous standard. Butts v. United States , 930 F.3d 234, 238 (4th Cir. 2019)

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we f ind no reversible error by
the d istrict c ourt. We therefore affirm its judgment in favor of Hatteras

. Hatteras/Cabo Yachts, LLC v. M/Y Epic , No. 4:17

- cv - 00025

- BR, 2021 WL 4468926 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2021)

.

of contract, breach of warranti es, violation of the Magnuson

- Moss Warranty Act, negligence, conversion, bad faith and unfair and deceptive trade practices for trial. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 4 of 55 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 5 of 5