UNPUBLISHED

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 5
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: J. Elizabeth Graddy, GRADDY LAW LLC, Atlanta, Georgia; William F. 

Rhodes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 5
3

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 yacht 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, allegedly

performing a “sea trial,” or stated differently, taking the boat out to assess 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 necessaries1 and seeking recovery 

of that same amount. Spisso and Acquaviva, Ltd., a single-asset corporation Spisso formed 

to own the yacht, counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of warranties, violations of 

the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligence, conversion, 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 transportation 

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 necessaries and defendants’ counterclaims for breach 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241 Doc: 63 Filed: 02/15/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

Following a bench trial, the district court held that Spisso’s attempted revocation 

was not justifiable. It also held that Hatteras was not liable 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; misapprehended 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, we 

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 find no reversible error by 

the district court. 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 warranties, 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 5
5

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