FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L12, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 28 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 33 4- CV-WS CRIM SON YACHTS, anun in co rp or at eddi vi si on of Ho riz on Sh ip bu il di ng , Inc ., an Al ab am a co rp or at io n, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BETTY LYNII MOTOR YACHT, Offi ci al No. 5 50 36 , inrem , BLYN II HOLDING, L LC, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 12 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, MAR CUS an d HIGGINB OTHAM, Cir cu itJu dg es . * BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Honora ble Patrick E. Hig g inbotham, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.App el la nt , sh ip y ardCri m so n Yac ht s, s eek s t o e nf or ce a m ari ti m e li enfor
m ajorrep ai rs itpe rfo rm edon a m ot ory ach t, Ap pe ll ee the Bet ty L yn II . Crim so n Yach ts cla im s t he y ach t’s o wne r, App el le e BLyn II Hol di ng , LLC (Blyn), fai le d t o m ak e fu ll pa ym en t fo r th e rep ai rs . Crim so n Yac ht s s ue d t he Bet ty L yn II in rem , an d s ue d B Ly

n in pe rs on am , to reco ve r th e rem ai nd er o f th e d eb t. Purs ua ntto App el le es ’ joi ntm ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he in rem cla im s ag ai ns t t he Bet ty L yn II an d v acat edit s arres t. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t he Betty L yn II was no t a “ ve ss el ” subjec t t o m ari ti m e li en s. Be cau se th e m ari ti m e li enwas a pr erequi si te to th e co urt’s ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on , th e co urt co nc lu de d i t l ack ed juri sd ic ti on ov er the in rem pr oc eed in g a ga in stth e Bet ty L yn II . The i ss ue we res ol ve on ap pe al is whet he r th e Bet ty L yn II is a ve ss el an d, t he refo re, s ub ject t o m ari ti m e li en s an d t he co urt’s ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . W e co nc lu de th atsh e is an d rev ers e an d re m an d fo r furth er p ro ceed in gs . I. BACKGROUND The Bet ty L yn II is a 13 2- fo oty ach t b ui ltin 19 74 . In 2 00 6, the pa rti es ag reedto ha ve Cri m so n Yac ht s p erfo rm a m ajorov erh au l o n t he Bet ty L yn II to in cl ud e, in te r a li a , ext en si on of i ts de ck s an d re pl acement o f it s en gi ne s, ge ne rat or s, el ect ro ni cs , nav ig at io n e qu ip m en t, p lu m bi ng , andwiri ng . The or ig in al est im at eddu rat io n o f th e rep ai r was 15 m on th s. Aft er the pa rti es ag reed
2to th e rep ai rs , th e Bet ty L yn II ’s eng in es , pro pe ll ers , pro pe ll er s ha fts , gen erat or s,

an d m os t o f it s fu rn itur e an d e qu ip m en t wer e rem ov ed , anditwas t owe d t o Cri m so n Yac ht s’s s hi pyard i n Al ab am a. Cri m so n Yac ht s b eg anworkon th e Bet ty Ly n II aro un d Oct ob er 1 , 20 06 . The re pa irs requi redCri m so n Yac ht s t o re m ov e th e Bet ty L yn II fro m

th e wat er wi th cran es an d p la ce h er o n acrad le in a co ve red sh ed . The wo rkan d t he co rres po nd in g p aym en ts co nt in ue d fo r a y ear anda ha lf. The n, i n M arch 20 08 , BLyn a ll eg ed ly cease d p aym en t fo r th e rep ai rs . Cri m so n Yach ts cla im s t he am ou ntin unpa idin vo ic es curren tl y ex ceed s $ 1,2 00 ,00 0. Cri m so n Yac ht s fi le d s ui t o n J un e 1 1, 2 00 8. Th e App el le es joi nt ly file d a
m ot io n t o v acat e th e arr es t o f, an d t o d is m is s t he in rem cla im s ag ai ns t, the Bet ty Ly n II forlac k o f ad m ira lty

juri sd ic ti on . The d is tri ctco urt h el d am ot io n h eari ng on Octo be r 29 , 20 08 at wh ic h t he co urt h eardtes ti m on y ab ou t t he ov erh au l an d co nd it io n o f th e Bet ty L y n II . On Feb ru ary 26 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d a n 1 or de r co nc lu di ng th ata sh ip m us t b e “ in navi ga ti on ” to be a “ ve ss el ,” an d fi nd in g th e m ajorov erh au l o f th e Bet ty L yn II ha d t ak enth e y ach t o utof n av ig at io n,
“[W ]hether maritime jurisdiction exi sts is a question anterior to, although often 1 coincident with, the que stion of whether the plaintiff has a

maritime lien.” W

ilkins v. Commercial Inv . Trust Corp. , 153 F.3d 1273, 1276 ( 11th Cir. 1998). As in Armour &Co. v. Fort Morgan S.S. Co. , 270 U.S. 253, 46 S. C t. 212 (1926), this “ca se is not of that class whe re the exist ence of jurisdiction is conclusively deter mined by the first plea ding of

him who insti tutes the suit,” but rather

require s us to “consider whether the fa cts deve loped af

ter the f iling . . . prec lude the exerc ise of admira lty jurisdiction.” Id. , 270 U.S. at 258–59, 46 S. Ct . at 214.

3th ereb y

di ve st in g h er o f he r st atus as ave ss el . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he in
re m cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Bet ty L yn II an d v acat edhe r arre st . Thi s t im el y in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al fol lo wed
.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Co ns ti tu ti on em

po wers th e fed eral jud ic ia ry to he ar “ al l Ca se s o f adm ira lt y an d m ari ti m e Ju ris di ct io n.” U.S. Con st . art . III § 2, cl . 2. Co ng res s, i n acco rd an ce wi th Arti cl e III, v es te d i n fe de ral di st ric t co urts “ or ig in al an d e xc lu si ve juri sd ic ti on ov er ‘any case o f ad m ira lt y or m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on .’ ” Se a Ves se l, In c. v. Reyes , 23 F.3d34 5, 3 48 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (quo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 3( 1) ). Thi s Co urt re vi ews de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof a dm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Bd. Of Comm’r s o f the Orl ea ns Leve e Dis t. v. M/ V Bell e o f Or le an s , 53 5 F .3d12 99 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). III. DISC USSION An in rem adm ira lty

pro ceed in g re qu ire s as it s b as is a m ari ti m e li en . Th e Roc k Is la nd

Bri dg e , 73 U.S. (6 Wall .) 21 3, 2 15 (18 67 ). “ A m ari ti m e li enis a sp eci al pro pe rty rig htin a sh ip gi ve n t o acred it orby law as sec ur it y fora de btor cl ai m ,” an d i t at ta ch es “ th e m om en t t he de btari se s.” Dresd ne r Ba nk AG v. M/V Olymp ia Voya ge r , 46 5 F .3d12 67 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ti ng Gal eh ea d, In c. v. M/V Ang li a , 18 3 F .3d12 42 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d)
. 4Mar it im e li en s d iff er fro m ot he r co m

m on law l ie ns in th ata m ari ti m e li enis “ no t si m pl y a se cu rit y

de vi ce t o b e fo recl os edif the own er d efau lt s” ; ra th er, a m ari ti m e li enco nv ert s the ve ss el it se lf i nt o t he ob li go r an d a ll ows in jure d p art ie s t o p ro ceed ag ai ns t i t d ire ct ly. Amstar Co rp . v. S/

S Al exa nd

ro s T. , 66 4 F .2d90 4, 9 08 –0 9 (4 th Ci r. 19 81 ). Thi s i s ca ll edan in rem pr oc eed in g. “ An in rem su itag ai ns t a v es se l is
. . . di st in ct iv el y

anadm ira lt y

pro ceed in g, an d i s h en ce wi th in th e ex cl us iv e pr ov in ce o f th e fed eral co urts .” Bell e o f Or le an s , 53 5 F .3dat 1 31 4 (quo ti ng Am. Dre dg in g C

o. v. Mi ll er , 51 0 U.S. 4 43 , 44 6– 47 , 11 4 S . Ct. 9 81 , 98 5 (1 99 4) ). Fed eral di st ric t co urts ob ta in in rem juri sd ic ti onov er a v es se l wh ena m ari ti m e li enatt ach es to it
. In du stri a N ac io na l Del

Pap el , CA. v. M/V Alb er t F

, 73 0 F .2d62 2, 6 25 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Upo n fi li ng an in rem co m pl ai nt , th e cl erkof co urt i ss ue s a wa rran t fo r th e arr es t o f th e res. S ee Mer ch s. Na t’l

Ban k v. Dre dg e Gen . G.L. Gill es

pi e , 66 3 F .2d13 38 , 13 40 n.1 (5t h C ir. 1 98 1) (qu ot in g Fed . R. Civ
. P., Sup pl em en ta l Ru le s fo r Certa inAdm ira lt y an d M ari ti m e Cl ai m s (Rul e C))
. The re s rem ai ns in th e co urt’s cu st od y du rin g t he pro ceed in g a s s erv es as b ot h t he res po nd en t an d the subjec t m at te r. Se e 2 Be ne di cton Adm ira lt y § 2 1 a t 2 -6 to 2-8 (7 th ed . rev . 19 98 ). The Fed eral Mari ti m e Lie n Act , 46 U.S.C. §§ 31 34 1– 31 34 3, g ran ts m ari ti m e li en s t o p art ic ul ar p ers on s b as edon th ei r rel at io ns hi p t o, o r se rv ic e o f, a
5ve ss el . For e xa m pl e, th e Actgra nt s a m ari ti m e li ento “ a p ers onpro vi di ng ne ces sa rie s t o ave ss el .” Se e id
. § 3 13 42 (a). Th e Actth engra nt s m ari ti m e li en ho ld ers th e ri gh t t o “ br in g aciv il act io n in rem to en fo rce t he li en .” Id. In ot he r wor ds , “ [a] m ari ti m e li engi ve s t o i ts ho ld er a p ro pe rty rig htin a ve ss el , and th e p ro ceed in g i n re m

is
. . . a m ean s o f en fo rci ng th e p ro pe rty rig ht .” Se e Mer ch s. Na t’l Ban k, 66 3 F .2dat 1 34 6. A m ari ti m e li encan no t b e ex ecu te d o r di ve st ed ou ts id e o f an in rem pr oc eed in g. Van de wa te r v. Mi ll s , 60 U.S. 82 , 89 (18 56 ). Cri m so n Yac ht s cl ai m s tha t i ts rep ai r work o n t he Bet ty L yn II en ti tl es itto a m ari ti m e li en . Crim so n Yac ht s s ou gh t t o e nf or ce thi s l ie n b y

fil in g in rem cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Bet ty L y

n II an d c au si ng th e co urt t o e ffec t h er arres t. Ap pe ll ees cla im Cri m so n Yac ht s’s wo rkon th e Bet ty L yn II di d n otres ul t i n am ari ti m e li en , be cau se th e y ach t i s n ota “ ve ss el ” acc or di ng to m ari ti m e la w, andthus is no t subjec t t o m ari ti m e li en s. Th e is su e, th en , is whet he r th e Bet ty L yn II is a “ ve ss el ” subjec t t o m ari ti m e li en s an d t he co urt’s jur is di ct io n, o r whe th er the ex te ns iv e an d ti m e-co ns um in g n atur e o f th e rep ai rs di ve st edth e Bet ty L yn II of h er v es se l s ta tu s, th ereb y m ak in g h er i ne li gi bl e fo r a m ari ti m e li enan d d ep riv in g t he di st ric t co urt o f adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on ov er the in rem cla im s i n t hi s ca se .

6A. Th e Pur

po se of Mar it ime L ie ns Inres ol vi ng whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt’s adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on en co m

pa ss es th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Bet ty L yn II , we rev ie w th e p ur po se , ori gi n, an d de ve lo pm en t o f m ari ti m e li en s. “ The m ari ti m e li ende ve lo pe d a s a n eces sa ry in ci de ntof t he op erat io n o f ve ss el s.” Pied mon t & Geor

ge ’s Cr eek C

oa l Co . v. Se ab oa rd Fis he ri es Co
. , 25 4 U.S. 1 , 8, 4 1 S . Ct. 1 , 3 (1 92 0) (el ab or at in g o n t he in te ntbe hi nd§ 3 13 42 (a)’s p red eces so r st atut e, th e Actof J un e 2 3) . Mari ti m e li en s ha ve sp eci al featur es de si gn edto pro te ctpe rs on s wh o o wn, s ai l, an d s erv ic e sh ip s fro m th e u ni qu e ri sk s as so ci at edwith the sh ip pi ng in du st ry . Mar it im e li en s o rig in at ed , inpa rt, “ in a de si re t o p ro te ctth e sh ip ,” whi ch is

“pe cu li arl y

subjec t t o v ic ss itud es whi chwou ldco m pe l ab an do nm en t . . . un le ss rep ai rs an d s up pl ie s wer e p ro m pt ly furn is he d.” Id
. at9, 4 1 S . Ct. at3. Sh ip s br av edth e d an ge r of

th e se as de pe nd en t o n aso li d c on stru ct io n a nda sk il lfu l crew. Sh ou ldst ru ctur e o r se am anfai l, s hi ps ha d l it tl e to co m pe ns at e fo r th e lo ss an d, atti m es , hadto see k t he he lp of s tra ng ers . Shi ps , ho wev er, o fte n l ack edit em s of su ffi ci en t v al ue to off

er i n e xc ha ng e fo r th e h el p t he y ne ed ed
. Bec au se a sh ip was o fte n i n n eedof r ep ai rs an d n eces sa rie s wh il e itwas away fro m

it s h om e p ort an d wi th ou t l arg e su m s o f m on ey on bo ard , m ari ti m e li en s en ab le d p ers on s i n c ha rg e o f th e sh ip to us e th e v al ue of t he ve ss el it se lf a s a 7pl ed ge of c red itin ord er t o s ecure the workan d p art s i t n eed eddu rin g t he vo y ag e.

Id
. ; se e a ls o Vever ic a v . Dri ll Bar ge Bucc an eer

No . 7 , 48 8 F .2d88 0, 8 83 (5t h C ir. 19 74 ) (“ The ve ry

pu rp os e o f m ari ti m e li en s i s t o e nc ou rag e n eces sa ry servi ces to sh ip s wh os e o wne rs are unabl e to m ak e co nt em po ran eo us pa ym en t.”) ; Th e 2 All ig at or , 16 1 F . 37 , 40 (3dCir . 19 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng m ari ti m e li en s fa ci li ta te co m m erce by enco ur ag in g m erch an ts to furni shsh ip s wi th supp li es an d re pa irs ); 2 Ben ed ic t o n Ad m ira lt y

§ 2 1 a t 2 -1 (7t h e d. re v. 1 99 8) . “ Mo ne y s ar e n otus ua ll y lo an edto st ran ge rs , res id en ts of d is ta ntan d fo rei gn co un tri es , witho utsec ur it y , an d i t wo ul d b e a v io le ntpre su m pt io n t o s up po se th atany su ch co ur se was ad op te d wh enam

pl e se cu rity

in th e v es se l was lying be fo re the parti es .” W ilki ns v. Co mmerc ia l In v. Tr us t Co rp . , 15 3 F .3d12 73 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Th e Emil y S ou de r , 84 U.S. (17 W al l.) 6 66 , 67 1 (1 87 3) ). Mar it im e li en s co ul d a tt ach “ ev enif t he ve ss el own er h a[d ] no t p ers on al ly co nt ract ed ” fo r th e se rv ic es pe rfo rm ed
. S.E.L. Ma du ro (Fla .), Inc . v. M/V Ant on io de Gas ta ne ta , 83 3 F .2d14 77 , 14 82 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ); se e a ls o 46 U.S.C. § 3 13 41 (a). Th is featur e, to o, ad dr es se d t he un ique ne ed s o f sh ip s s ai li ng far awa y fro m th ei r ho m e p orts .
The Eleve nth Circuit, in the en banc de cision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 2 1207, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), adopted a s prec edent de cisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit render ed prior to Octobe r 1, 1981. 8Inad di ti on to th e u ni qu e n atur e o f m ari ti m e li en s, the m ari ti m e-l ie n p rio rit y

syste m faci li ta te d ash ip ’s abi li ty to o fferso m ethi ng of v al ue in ex ch an ge forwhat itne ed ed . Mari ti m e li en s h av e p rio rit y ov er n on -m ari ti m e li en s an d p rio rit y ov er ot he r m ari ti m e li en s i n re ve rs e ch ro no lo gi cal ord er: th atis , th e m os t re cen t l ie n po ss es se s t he supe rio r cl ai m . Th e Emil y S ou de r , 84 U.S. at 6 72 ; Th e St. Ja go de Cu ba , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat .) 40 9, 4 16 (18 24 ); se e a ls o 2 B en ed ic t o n Ad m ira lt y § 5 1 at4-1 to 4-4 (7th e d. re v. 1 99 8) . This is be cau se “ [i]f li en s cr eat edby the ne ces si ti es of v es se ls in a fo rei gn po rt c ou ldbe subo rd in at edto or d is pl acedby
m ortg ag es to pri orcred it or s atho m e, su ch li en s wo ul d s oo n c eas e to be reg ard ed as . . . affo rd in g a ny reli ab le sec ur it y .” Th e Emil y S ou de r , 84 U.S. at 6 72 . This rev ers e-ch ro no lo gy pri or it y syste m do es no di ss erv ic e to earl ie r cl ai m an ts be cau se , as with fu nd s, wh enservi ces are “ [a]dv an cedforth e se cu rit y an d p ro te ct io n o f th e ve ss el , th ey

. . . be ne fit
. . . th e m ortg ag ees as we ll as . . . th e o wne rs .” Se e id
. Mo stim po rta nt ly, th e p rio rit y

syste m en co ur ag es rep ai rm ento servi ce the sh ip s o f st ran ge rs witho utkn owi ng an yth in g o f th e sh ip ’s pri orcred ithi st ory . Thes e sp eci al featur es faci li ta te sh ip s’ abi li ty to co nt ractwith p ers on s ab le to supp ly and rep ai r th em , wher ev er s hi ps m ig htfin d t he m se lv es . 3 Also influencingthe deve lopment of maritime liens may have be en the historica l conce pt 3 of a ve ssel as a pe rson with independe nt liabilit y . See D etroit Trus t Co. v. Barlum S.S. Co. , 293 U.S. 21, 48, 55 S. C t. 31, 40 (1934) (“ The ship from the moment he r kee l touches the wa ter . . . acquir es per sonality ; she bec omes compete nt to contrac t, is indi vidually liable for he r 9Mar it im e li en s h av e ad di ti on al qu al it ie s s pe ci al ly des ig ne d t o p ro te ctth os e

fu rn is hi ng sh ip s wi threp ai rs an d s up pl ie s. Fo r in st an ce, m ari ti m e li en s p ro te ct rep ai rm enan d s up pl ie rs fro m cli en ts who m ig htbe tem pt edto sai l the ir v es se ls away aft er s erv ic es are re nd ered
. Se e Equ il ea se Co rp . v. M/V Sa mps on , 79 3 F .2d 59 8, 6 02 (5t h C ir.1 98 6) (enba nc ) (“ The fed eral m ari ti m e li enis a un ique sec ur ity de vi ce, s erv in g t he du al pu rp os e o f ke ep in g s hi ps m ov in g i n c omm erce whi le no t al lo win g t he m

to esc ap e th ei r de bt s b y

sai li ng away .”); se e a ls o Ven tu ra Pack er s, In c. v. F/V Jea ni ne Ka th le en , 30 5 F .3d91 3, 9 19 (9t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Mari ti m e li en s al lo w in jure d p art ie s, s uc h a s u np ai d re pa ire rs or s up pl ie rs , to “ ob ta in redres s . . . wit ho utsee ki ng co m

pe ns at io n abr oa d fr om

th e v es se l’s o wne r,” en ab li ng th em to pr oc eeddi rect ly agai ns t t he ve ss el in rem . Se e Amstar Co rp . v. S/

S Al exa nd

ro s T. , 66 4 F .2d90 4, 9 09 (4t h C ir. 1 98 1) . The l ie ns ve stin“ cred it or s wh o p ro vi de supp li es whi ch are n eces sary to ke ep th e sh ip go in g. . . . th e ri gh t t o app ro pr ia te th e v es se l, h av e itso ld , andbe rep ai d t he de btfro m th e p ro ceed s.” Si lv er

St ar Ent er s., In c. v. Sa ra mac ca MV , 82 F.3d66 6, 6 68 (5t h C ir. 1 99 6) (qu ot in g
obligations, and is responsible for he r torts.”) ( quotations omit ted) ; seealso Equilease Corp. v. M/V Sampson , 793 F.2d 598, 602 ( 5th Cir. 1986) (en ba nc), cert. de nied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S. Ct. 570 (1986) (“T he maritime lien concept thus somewhat personifies a vessel as a

n entity with potential liabiliti es indepe ndent and a part fr om the persona l liability of its owner.” ) ; Me rchs. Nat’l Bank, 663 F.2d at 1345 (“ The maritime lien has at its basis, to a substantial ex tent, the historical and theor etical c oncept of personific ation . . . .”); 2 B enedic t on Admiralty § 21 at 2-2 (7th ed. Rev. 1998)
. 10Damp skib ss el sk ab et Dan ne br og

v. Si gn al Oil &Gas Co
. , 31 0 U.S. 2 68 , 28 0, 6 0 S . Ct . 93 7, 9 43 (19 40 ) an d Equ il ea se , 79 3 F .2dat 6 02 ). The adhe si ve na tu re o f m ari ti m e li en s p ro vi de s ad di ti on al pro te ct io n t o rep ai rm enan d s up pl ie rs . Unl ik e m ech an ic s’ andm at eri al m en ’s li en s, m ari ti m e li en s d o n otde pe ndon th e in jure d p art y ’s po ss es si on of t he ve ss el ; a m ari ti m e li en tra ve ls with t he ve ss el wher ev er i t g oe s, re ga rd le ss of i nt o wh os e h an ds itm ay pa ss , whet he r orno t t he li enis reco rd ed
. Van de wa te r , 60 U.S. at 8 9 (1 85 6) (d es cri bi ng a m ari ti m e li enas a“ se cret ” ri gh t o f th e li en ho ld er i n t he pro pe rty ev enwhenhe is “wit ho utactua l p os se ss io n o r an y rig htof p os se ss io n,” an d ackno wled gi ng th e li enrem ai ns with t he ve ss el , eve n s urvi vi ng it s p ur ch as e b y a bo nafid e b uyer); Equ il ea se , 79 3 F .2dat 6 02 . Thu s, m ari ti m e li en s b en efi t t ho se who own , len d t o, an d re pa ir v es se ls , su ch th atpe rs on s ab le to pro vi de forsh ip s’ im m ed ia te ne ed s ar e as su reda si gn ifi can t, cl ear, an d p red ic tabl e se cu rity de vi ce tha t i s t ai lo redto th e u ni qu e featur es of m ari ti m e co m m erce . B. A Brie f Hist or y o f Ma ri ti me Li en Leg is la ti on It i s n otsu rp ris in g tha t, g iv enth e h is to ric al na tu re an d s pe ci al ne ed s o f th e sh ip pi ng in du st ry , m ari ti m e li enlaws are n o re cen t d ev el op m en t. Ma rit im e li en s ex is te d i n C on ti ne nt al Euro pe an d fi rs t em erg edin th e Uni te d S ta te s t hr ou gh st at e 11an d c omm on law. Se e 2 B en ed ic t o n Ad m ira lt y §§ 36 –3 7 a t 3 -2 1 t o 3 -2 2; § 4 1, at 3- 44 (7th e d. re v. 1 99 8) . This de cen tra li zedde ve lo pm en t o f th e li enlaws res ul te d in a “ co nf us in g c ol le ct io n o f in di vi du al st atut es en act edov er . . . cen tu rie s— each en act edto so lv e so m e p art ic ul ar p ro bl em of t he da y .” Se e H. R. RE P . N O . 10 0- 91 8, at11 (19 88 ). The s ta tu te s wer e “po or ly org an iz ed , dupl ic at iv e, of te n ob so le te , anddi ffi cu ltto un de rs ta ndan d app ly.” Id
. The co m pe ti ng leg al reg im es go ve rn in g m ari ti m e li en s wer e fu rth er co m pl ic at edby geo gr ap hi cal va ria nc e. Diffe ren t l oc at io ns ha d d iff eren t ru le s go ve rn in g wh ethe r li en s co ul d a tt ach , dep en di ng on , forex am pl e, a s hi p’s o rig in an d p ort o f se rv ic e. Se e H. R. RE P . N O . 46 -1 69 8 a t 1 –3 (18 80 ). The l aws als o di ffer edas t o wh endu rin g t he rep ai r pr oc es s a l ie n c ou ldatt ach
. Id. Con gr es s reco gn iz edth e n eedto un ify andsi m pl ify the law. Se e Th e Ger tr ude v. Co wa rd , 38 F.2d94 6, 9 48 (5t h C ir. 1 93 0) (no ti ng on e o f th e p ur po se s o f th e Actof J un e 2 3, 19 10 was t o re pl ace s ta te m ari ti m e-l ie n s ta tu te s wi th a si ng le , nat io na l l aw). In19 10 , Con gr es s p as se d t he fir stve rs io n o f th e Fed eral Mari ti m e Lie n Act , es tabl is hi ng a un ifo rm

na ti on al m ari ti m e li ensyste m . Se e id ; Actof J un e 2 3, 19 10 , ch. 3 73 § 1 , 36 Sta t. 6 04 (cu rren t v ers io n a t 4 6 U.S.C. § 31 34 2( a)). Th e Act of Ju ne 23 , 19 10 st at ed : Any pe rs on fu rn is hi ng rep ai rs , supp li es , or ot he r ne ces sa rie s, in cl ud in g t he us e of dry do ck or m ari ne rai lway, to a ve ss el , whe th er f o r e i g n o r 12do m es ti c, up on th e or de r of th e own er or own ers of su ch ve ss el , or of a

pe rs on by hi m or th em au th or iz ed , s h a l l h av e a m ari ti m e li en on th e ve ss el whi ch m ay be en fo rced by a pr oc eed in g in rem , an d it sh al l no t be ne ces sa ry

to all eg e o r pr ov e th atcred itwas g iv ento th e v es se l. Inen act in g t he st atut e, Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d t o “ ch an ge th e g en eral pr in ci pl es of t he law o f m ari ti m e li en s” ; i ns te ad , Con gr es s m ean t “ to si m pl ify and cl ari fy th e ru le s [g ov ern in g] m ari ti m e li en s as to whi ch th ere h adbe enm uc h co nf us io n,” to eli m in at e “ art ifi ci al di st in ct io n[ s],” an d t o “ subs ti tu te [] a fede ral st atut e fo r nu m ero us st at e st atut es .” Damp skib ss el sk ab et Dan ne br og , 31 0 U.S. at 27 1– 72 , 60 S. Ct. at93 9– 40 ; Equ il ea se , 79 3 F .2dat 6 02 –0 3 (n ot in g p rio r to th e Act t he re was “ a d is crep an cy . . . as to when an d u nd er wh atcir cu m st an ces ” a
m ari ti m e li enwou ldap pl y an d n ot in g t ha t wi th th e en act m en t o f th e la w, “ a si ng le fed eral st atut e is subs ti tu te d fo r th e st at e st atut es . . . an d the ol d g eo gr ap hi cal di st in ct io ns are g on e”). The fir stna ti on al law l ai d aso li d fo un da ti on forcrea ti ng a co m pr eh en si bl e an d u se r-fri en dl y

li ensyste m , bu t i t d idno t t ot al ly elim in at e th e co nf us io n su rro un di ng m ari ti m e li en s. As a res ul t, the Act was am en de d o ve r ti m e fo r th e pu rp os e o f fu rth er s im

pl ifyin g a ndcla rif

y in g t he li ensyste m . Se e, e.g . , H. R. RE P . N O . 10 0- 91 8, at11 (19 88 ). The m os t re cen t v ers io n o f th e la w was en act edin 19 89 , when 46 U.S.C. § 3 13 42 supe rs ed edanam en de d v ers io n o f th e o rig in al Act

13“ wit ho utsi gn ifi can t ch an ge .” In re Con ta in er App li ca ti on s In t’l

, Inc
. , 23 3 F .3d 13 61 , 13 63 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Lik e it s p red eces so rs , Con gr es s p as se d t he cu rren t v ers io n o f th e Fed eral Mar it im e Lie n Actto res ol ve m is un de rs ta nd in gs th atha d d ev el op edab ou t t he
m ean in g o f th e Act ; Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d t o e ffec t an y dra m at ic subs ta nt iv e ch an ge . Dresd

ne r Ba nk , 46 5 F .3dat 1 27 2 n .3; Si lv er St ar Ent er s. , 82 F.3dat 6 68 n.2 ; H. R. RE P . N O . 10 0- 91 8, at15 (19 88 ). In e na ct in g t he cu rren t s ta tu te , Co ng res s s ou gh t t o e li m in at e an y co nf us io n s urro un di ng th e m ean in g o f th e la w an d i nt en de d t ha t “ th e li te ral lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e [w]ou ldco nt ro l t he di sp os it io n o f th e cas es ” in te rp ret in g i t. H. R. RE P . N O . 10 0- 91 8, at16 (19 88 ). C. “Ves se l” St at us as a Pr er eq uisi te to Attac hi ng a Ma ri ti me Li en Not ab ly, in each it erat io n o f th e Fed eral Mari ti m e Lie n Act , th e st atut ory la ng ua ge sp eci fie s t ha t o nl y rep ai rs pe rfo rm edon a “ ve ss el ” g en erat e a m ari ti m e li en . Thu s, a s hi p’s ch arac te riz at io n a s a “ ve ss el ” is a m an da to ry pre requi si te to th e at ta ch m en t o f a m ari ti m e li en . Becau se a di st ric t co urt’s au th or it y to arre sta sh ip an d t o a dju di cat e an in rem pro ceed in g a ga in stitrequi res th e at ta ch m en t o f a
m ari ti m e li en , bo thth e li enan d t he di st ric t co urt’s jur is di ct io n d ep en d o n ash ip ’s st atus as a“ ve ss el .”

14Tit le 1 U.S.C. § 3 p ro vi de s t he de fau ltde fin it io n o f “ ve ss el ” fo r th e en ti re

Uni te d S ta te s C od e. St ewa rt v. Dutra Co ns tr . Co. , 54 3 U.S. 4 81 , 49 0, 1 25 S. Ct. 11 18 , 11 24 (20 05 )
. “ The word‘ ve ss el ’ in cl ud es ev ery de sc rip ti on of wa te rcra ft o r ot he r art ifi ci al co nt riv an ce u se d, o r cap ab le of b ei ng us ed , as am ean s o f tra ns po rta ti on on wate r.” 1 U.S.C. § 3 . This cas e h in ge s o n wh ethe r th e Bet ty L yn II fal ls withi n t ha t d es cri pt io n. If t he Bet ty L yn II is no t capabl e o f be in g u se d fo r wate r tr an sp orta ti on , Cri m so n Yac ht s ca nn otpo ss ib ly hav e a m ari ti m e li enforth e rep ai rs itpe rfo rm edon he r, an d the di st ric t co urt wo ul d, t he refo re, h av e n o adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on to ad

jud ic at e th e in rem cla im s. Inde ci di ng whethe r a wat ercr aftis a ve ss el , “ th e fo cu s . . . is th e cra ft’s cap ab il it y , no t i ts pre se ntus e o r st at io n.” Bd. o f Co mm'rs of

th e Orl ea ns Leve e Dis t. v. M/ V Bell e o

f Or le an s , 53 5 F .3d12 99 , 13 10 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The di sp os it iv e que st io n i s “ whe th er the wate rcra ft’s u se as am ean s o f tr an sp orta ti on on wate r is a pr act ic al po ss ib il it y or m erel y

a th eo ret ic al on e.” Id
. (quo ti ng St ewa rt , 54 3 U.S. at49 6, 1 25 S. Ct. at11 18 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Ca in v. Tr an so cea n Of

fs ho re USA, In c. , 51 8 F .3d29 5, 3 00 (5t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; see al so Holmes v. Atlan ta So un di ng Co ., 43 7 F .3d44 1, 4 48 (5t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ Und er § 3, a ‘ves se l’ is an

ywate rcra ft p ract ic al ly capab le of mar it ime tra ns po rt at io n ,

15reg ard le ss of i ts pri m ary pu rp os e o r st at e o f tr an si t ata parti cu la r m om en t.”

(quo ta ti on s o m it te d) )
. Sh ortl y aft er the pa ss ag e o f th e o rig in al fed eral m ari ti m e li enst atut e, th e Supr em e Co urt ex po un de d o n wh ic h s hi ps qu al ify as v es se ls forth e p ur po se of adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Se e N. Pac . S.S. Co. v. Ha ll Bro s. Ma ri ne Ry. & Sh ip bu ildi ng

Co
. , 24 9 U.S. 1 19 , 29 S. Ct. 2 21 (19 19 ). The Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear t ha t a s hi p t owe d i nt o p ort fo r ex te ns iv e rep ai rs m ay rem ai n ave ss el subjec t to adm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on du rin g t he ov erh au l. The st eam sh ip inqu es ti on in Hal l Bro th er s “ ha d b een wreck ed , andha d re m ai ne d s ub m erg edfora lo ng ti m e; ice flo es ha d t orn a way

th e upp er d eck s, an d s om e o f he r bo tt om pl at es als o n eed edto be rep la ced .” Id. at 1 23 , 29 S. Ct. at22 2. Lik e th e Bet ty L yn II , th e sh ip in Hal l Bro th er s was t owe d t o ash ip y ardan d t he n p la cedin drydo ckto un de rg o ex te ns iv e rep ai rs —i n t ha t ca se , to read y th e sh ip foranAlas ka n v oyage. Id
. The Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t t he st eam sh ip , des pi te it s d il ap id at edst at e an d e xt en si ve ov erh au l, re m ai ne d s ub

ject t o a dm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on du rin g t he rep ai r pe rio d. Id
. at12 9, 2 9 S . Ct. at22 4. The form er Fi fth Cir cu it , to o, p ro vi de d e arl y gu id an ce as to whi ch sh ip s were v es se ls subjec t t o m ari ti m e li en s. Se e Ple as on v. Gul fp or t S hi pb ui ldin g Co rp . , 22 1 F .2d62 1 (5 th Cir . 19 55 ). In Plea so n , th e p la in ti ffs so ug htto en fo rce a 16m ari ti m e li enon th e st eam sh ip th e Car ol Ann forworkdo ne co nv ert in g the sh ip

in to a sh rimp pro ces si ng , freez in g, an d s to rag e p lant . Id
. at 6 22 –2 3. Th e de fen da nt s ar gu edth e Car ol Ann was n ota “ ve ss el ” und er m ari ti m e law. Id
. at 62 2. Whenth e Car ol Ann was b ro ug htin forrep ai rs , sh e h adbe engu tt edan d h ad to be to wed , m

uc h l ik e th e Bet ty L yn II in th is cas e. Id
. at 6 22 –2 3. Th e Car ol Ann ha d n o p ro pe ll ers , pro pe ll er s ha fts , crew, worki ng m ach in ery, li gh t, h eat , po wer, en gi ne s, o r st eeri ng ap paratus es when sh e was bro ug htin forrep ai rs . Id
. Alt ho ug h s he reg ai ne d h er o wn p owe r syste m , th e rep ai rs lef t t he Caro l An n wit ho utm ot iv e o r st eeri ng po wer an d m oo redto a do ckby stee l cabl es with h er te le ph on e an d e le ctric li ne s co nn ect edto th e la nd
. Id
. at 6 23 . The Caro l An n was afl oa t, h ada supe rs tru ctur e, m as ts , dec ks , andcab in s an d was cap ab le of b ei ng to wedbo th be fo re an d a fte r th e rep ai rs . Id
. Thu s, the Plea so n Co urt h el d t ha t t he st eam sh ip was ave ss el , em ph as iz in g s he was “ ca

pa bl e of be in g u se d a s a m ean s o f wat er tran sp orta ti on .” Id. Plea so n, li ke Hal l Bro th er s , su gg es ts th e Bet ty L yn II is a ve ss el de sp it e u nd erg oi ng a m as si ve ov erh au l, b ecau se sh e m ai nt ai ne d h er s tru ctur e an d was cap ab le of b ei ng to wed bo th pri oran d s ub se qu en t t o t he rep ai rs at i ss ue . In Bell e o f Or le an s , th is Cir cu it , gu id edin pa rt b y Plea so n , hel d t ha t a ga m bl in g b oa t t ha t b ro ke free du rin g Hurri can e Katrin a, se ve rel y dam ag in g i ts el f 17an d am ari na , was a v es se l fo r pu rp os es of a dm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on , eve n t ho ug h i t ha d s te el cab le s m oo rin g h er t o t he sh or e an d h er el ect ric , com pu te r, se wag e, an d ph on e syst em s wer e li nk edto lan d. 5 35 F.3dat 1 30 7, 1 31 6. As th e Bel le of Orle an s m ai nt ai ne d acap ta in , a crew, a d eck , a supe rs tru ctur e, cab in s, en gi ne s, an d g en erat or s, an d was afl oa t an d c ap ab le of b ei ng to wedin forrep ai rs , th is Ci rcu ithe lditsat is fie d t he requi rem en ts of 1 U.S.C. § 3 . Id
. at 1 31 2. The Bell e o

f Or le an s Co urt d is ti ng ui sh edbe twee n v es se ls th atare

“ te m po rari ly stat io ne d i n aparti cu la r lo cat io n” an d n on -v es se ls “ pe rma ne nt ly affi xe d t o s ho re o r res ti ng onth e o cean flo or .” Id
. at 1 31 0 (q uo ti ng St ewa rt , 54 3 U.S. at 4 93 –9 4, 1 25 S. Ct. At11 27 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Thi s d ic ho to m y is us efu l 4 in ex am in in g t he Bet ty L yn II . Desp it e h er “ st at e o f tr an si t at[th e] part ic ul ar m om en t,” se e Ste wa rt , 54 3 U.S. at42 7, 1 25 S. Ct. at11 29 , th e Bet ty L yn II ha d be ento wedin for

rep ai rs , m ai nt ai ne d h er s tru ctur e dur in g t he ov erh au l, an d c ou ld ha ve be enpu t i n the wate r an d t owe d wi th in24 ho ur s. Sh e was no t p erm an en tl y affi xe d t o l an d o r to th e b ot to m of t he oc ean in a m an ne r th atsap pe d h er p ract ic al Ships rendere d perma

nently incapa ble of maritime transportation are “dea d ships” 4 ineligible f

or maritime liens. See A moco Oil v. M /V Montclair , 766 F.2d 473, 477 ( 11th Cir. 1985) (“ A‘ve ssel’ is subject to a maritime lien. A ‘dea d ship’ is not.”); see also Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. v . U.S.A.F. Ge n. Hoyt S. Vande nberg , 584 F. Supp. 2d 862, 867 (E.D. V a. 2008) (“Akey element in dete rmining whether a waterc raf

t that was indisputably

a vesse l at some point in the past is now a ‘de ad ship’ is whethe r such waterc raf t is permane ntlywithdrawn f rom navig ation.”) ( citing Herc ules Co. v. The Brigadier Gen. Absolom Baird, 214 F.2d 66, 68 ( 3d Cir. 1954)). 18cap aci ty to s erv e as a m od e o f tr an sp orta ti on on wate r. Bell e o f Or le an s , th eref

or e, su gg es ts th e Bet ty L yn II ret ai ne d h er v es se l s ta tu s dur in g t he rep ai r pe rio d. Bell e o f Or le an s als o re li ed , inpa rt, o n the Supr em e Co urt d eci si on in St ewa rt v. Dutra Co ns tr uc ti on Co . Se e Bel le of Orl ea ns , 53 5 F .3dat 1 30 6, 13 09 –1 2. In St ewa rt , th e Supr em e Co urt d eci de d wh ethe r a p ers onin jure d wh il e worki ng on a dr ed ge cal le d the Supe r Sco op co ul d re co ve r worke r’s co m pe ns at io n un de r th e Jo ne s Act , an a ctth atpro te ct s o nl y sea m en . 54 3 U.S. at48 5– 86 , 12 5 S .

5 Ct . at 1 12 2– 23 . The St ewa rt Co urt an al y zedth e te rm “ ve ss el in na vi ga ti on ,” be cau se “ th e k ey

to sea m anst atus is em

pl oym en t-r el at edco nn ect io n t o ave ss el in na vi ga ti on ,” Ch an dr is , Inc . v. Lat sis , 51 5 U.S. 3 47 , 35 7, 1 15 S. Ct. 2 17 2, 2 18 4 (1 99 5) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The St ewa rt Co urt h el d t ha t, al th ou gh itwas i dl e, wit h o ne sco w at s ea an d t he ot he r wit ho uta worki ng en gi ne , th e Supe r Sco op was a v es se l i n n av ig at io n b ecau se it“ ha d n otbe entak enou t o f se rv ic e, pe rm an en tl y an ch or ed , or o th erwi se ren de redpra ct ic al ly inc ap ab le of m ari ti m e tr an sp ort.” 5 43 U.S. at49 6, 1 25 S. Ct. at11 28 . The Co urt s ta te d t ha t i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a The Jones Act was bor

n from Congress’ r ecognition of the g reater pe rils of a life a t sea 5 and provide s more extensive worke r’s c ompensation rec overy for se amen than that available to land-ba sed worke rs under the L ong shore a

nd Har bor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis , 515 U.S. 347, 354–56, 368, 370, 115 S. C t. 2172, 2183–84, 2190 (1995); see Bainbridge v . Merc hants’. &Miners’ Transp. Co. , 287 U.S. 278, 282, 53 S. C t. 159, 160 (1932) ( “Seame n have a lway s been r eg arde d as wa rds of the a dmiralty , and their rights, wrong s, and injuries a spe cial subjec t of the admira lty jurisdiction. The policy

of Congress, a s evidenc ed by

its legislation, has be en to dea l with them as a favored c lass.” (c itations omi tted)). 19wate rcra ft c on st itut es a “ ve ss el ” und er § 3, “ [t]he qu es ti on rem ai ns in all cas es

whe th er the wate rcra ft’s u se ‘ as a m ean s o f tr an sp orta ti on on wate r’ is a p ract ic al po ss ib il it y

or m erel y

a th eo ret ic al on e.” Id
. (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. The di stric t co urt re li edon St ewa rt for th e p ro po si ti on th ata wate rcra ft t ak en ou t o f na vi ga ti on is no lo ng er a v es se l. St ewa rt do es m en ti on th ata sh ip ’s na vi ga ti on al st atus is “ rel ev an t” to whet he r itis pra ct ic al ly capab le of tra ns po rta ti on on wate r. 54 3 U.S. at49 6, 1 25 S. Ct. at11 28 . The Co urt d oe s n ot , ho wev er, re qu ir e th ata sh ip be “ in na vi ga ti on ” to be co ns id ereda “ ve ss el ” fo r pu rp os es of 1 U.S.C. § 3 . 6 As we h av e d is cu ss ed , St ewa rt de ci de d wh ethe r a wo rk er o n aflo at in g dr ed ge was asea m an . St ewa rt di d n otde ci de whet he r a s hi p t ak enou t o f th e wat er fo r ex te ns iv e rep ai rs was ave ss el
. St ewa rt ’s ho ld in g, t hu s, d oe s n otde ci de th e is su e b efo re u s. Ra th er, we m us t d eci de th is cas e b y

lo ok in g a t i ts di st in ctfactua l ci rcu m st an ces an d t he ir l eg al im pl ic at io ns . Neh ri ng

v. S.S. M/V Poi nt

Vai l , 90 1 F.2 d 1 04 4, 1 05 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0)
. St ewa rt si m pl y rei nf or ces ou r pr eced en t,

Be nedict on Admira lty

succinc tly

states the conc lusion compelled by prec edent a

nd a 6 revie w of the intent be hind the maritime lien sy stem: “[T] here is no reason why a vesse l which has bee n withdrawn f

rom navig ation but which is still technica lly capa ble of be ing use d in navig ation should escape the provisions of the [Fede ral Maritime L ien Act]. 2 Be nedict on Admiralty

§§ 38 at 3-26 (7th e d. rev. 1998)
. 20di rect in g o urfoc us to th e Bet ty L yn II ’s pr ac ti ca l ca pa bi li ty to serve as am ean s o f
m ari ti m e tr an sp orta ti on . D. Th e Bet tyLyn II is a Ves se l A “ cas e-b y -cas e ap pr oa ch ” is oft enne ces sary to de te rm in e whe th er ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on ap pl ie s t o “ no ve l o r un us ua l s itua ti on s.” Id
. Thi s ca se warran ts su ch anap pr oa ch . Our lo ng li ne of p rece de ntde m on st rat es th atde sp it e h er m as si ve ov erh au l, the Bet ty L yn II m ai nt ai ne d h er v es se l s ta tu s dur in g t he rep ai r pe rio d. Neit he r th e m an ne r of

he r rep ai r, no r th e fac t t ha t t he ne ed edrep ai rs were s o ex te ns iv e as to tem

po rari ly dis ab le he r, di ve st edhe r of he r st atus as ave ss el
. In de edou r rev ie w of the hi st ory of m ari ti m e li en s d em on st rat es th ey were d es ig ne d to en co ur ag e rep ai rs on sh ip s i n g reatne ed
. Se e su pr a Sect io n II I.A. The Bet ty L y

n II ne edm erel y

be cap ab le of t ran sp orta ti on on wate r to be a ve ss el . The l aw do es no t re qu ire th atsh e b e ab le to sel f-p ro pe l. Se e Bel le of Orl ea ns , 53 5 F .3dat 1 30 7 (n ot in g t he “ ve ss el ” h adto be to wedin forrep ai rs ); Mia mi Riv er

Boa t Y ar d, In c. v. 60 ' Hou se bo at , 39 0 F .2d59 6, 5 97 (5t h C ir. 1 96 8) (h ol di ng th ata ho us eb oa t i s “ a v es se l capabl e o f be in g s ub ject t o am ari ti m e li en ,” as th e fac t t ha t “ sh e h as no m ot iv e p owe r an d m us t . . . be t owe d d oe s n otde pr iv e he r of th e st atus of ave ss el ”); se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Temp le to n , 37 8 F .3d84 5, 85 0– 51 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ho ld in g t ha t a s hi p wi th in op erab le en gi ne s an d n o abi li ty 21to sel f-p ro pe l was a “ ve ss el ” b ecau se itha d re si du al na vi ga ti on al cap aci ty);

Co lo nn a’ s S hi py ard , 58 4 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 8 64 , 87 2– 73 (ho ld in g t ha t a s hi p wh os e po wers of s el f-n av ig at io n wer e p ract ic al ly irrep arab le an d t ha t was to wedto a rep ai r fac il it y

to be co nv ert edin to anart ifi ci al reef was ave ss el subjec t t o m ari ti m e li en s b ecau se itco ul d b e to wedan d c arry a crew an d c arg o) . In fa ct , itis in st ru ct iv e th at , inad di ti onto “rep ai rs ,” th e “ ne ces sa rie s” forwhi ch m ari ti m e li en s are aut ho riz edun de r th e Fed eral Mari ti m e Lie n Actsp eci fic al ly inc lu de to wag e. Se e46 U.S.C. § 3 13 01 (4 ). Altho ug h s he co ul d n otsel f-p ro pe l, the Bet ty L yn II co ul d b e to wedup on 24 ho ur s n ot ic e. Nordo es th e fac t tha t the Bet ty L yn II was d ry do ck edforth e rep ai rs di ve st he r of ve ss el st atus . Se e N. Pac . S.S. Co. , 24 9 U.S. at12 8, 3 9 S . Ct. at22 4 (h ol di ng th atadm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on ex te nd edto anact io n fo r sh ip rep ai rs pe rfo rm edin dry do ck , bec au se “ th ere i s n o d iff eren ce i n c ha ract er as to rep ai rs m ad e upo n t he hu ll of ave ss el de pe nd en t upo n wh ethe r th ey are m ad e whi le sh e is afl oa t, wh il e in dry do ck , or wh il e h au le d up b y way s upo n l an d. Th e n atur e o f th e se rv ic e is id en ti cal in th e se ve ral cas es , andth e ad m ira lty juri sd ic ti on ex te nd s t o a ll .”); Jo ne s v. One Fif

tyFoo t Gu lf

st ar Mot or Sa il in g Y ac ht , 62 5 F .2d44 , 47 n.2 . (5t h C ir. 19 80 ) (h ol di ng th ata y ach t t ha t h adbe entes t-s ai le d b utwas p la cedin drydo ck aft erwar d d idno t l os e it s s ta tu s as a ve ss el m erel y by bei ng drydo ck ed ). Infact , 22“ al l s eri ou s re pa irs up on th e h ul ls of v es se ls are m ad e indry do ck s,” s o t he “ erro r”

of ex em pt in g s hi ps in drydo ckfro m adm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on wou ld“ de pr iv e th e adm ira lt y co urts of t he ir l arg es t an d m os t i m po rta ntjuri sd ic ti on in co nn ect io n wi th rep ai rs .” Si mmon s v. Th e S .S. Je ff er so n , 21 5 U.S. 1 30 , 14 3, 3 0 S . Ct. 5 4, 5 8 (1 90 9)
. Neit he r is th e ex te ns iv en es s o f th e Bet ty L yn II ’s ov erh au l s o g reatas t o vi rtu al ly tran sf

orm th e rep ai r work i nt o n ew-s hi p c on st ru ct io n, wh ic h wo ul d n otbe subjec t t o a dm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on . Se e NewBedf or d Dr y Doc k Co . v. Purdy , 25 8 U.S. 96 , 10 0, 4 2 S . Ct. 2 43 , 24 4 (1 92 2) . “ [I]f any con si de rab le pa rt o f th e h ul l an d sk el et on of a n o ldve ss el init s i nt actco nd it io n, wi th ou t b ei ng bro ke n up, i s b ui lt up on , th e la w ho ld s t ha t i n s uc h acas e itis th e o ldve ss el reb ui lt , andno t a n ew ve ss el .” Id
. The di stric t co urt h el d t ha t, b ecau se th e rep ai rs Cri m so n Yac ht s p erfo rm ed on th e Bet ty L yn II were s o e xt en si ve an d t im e co ns um in g, t he Betty L yn II lo sthe r st atus as ave ss el du rin g the co ur se of t he ov erh au l an d, t hu s, Cr im so n Yac ht s l os t an y sec ur ity forit s l ab orin th e fo rm

of am ari ti m e li en . Thatho ld in g i s m is ta ke n. Co ng res s cr eat edm ari ti m e li en s t o p ro te ctbo th sh ip s i n n eedof s erv ic e an d pe rs on s wi ll in g t o p ro vi de su ch servi ces . Con gr es s co ul d n otha ve in te nd edas t he

23ne edforpro te ct io n i nc reas ed , th e la w’ s p ro te ct io n wo ul d re tra ct . Thus , th e

m ari ti m e-l ie n s y st em

su rel y ap pl ie s i n s cen ari os su ch as t hi s. IV. CONCLUSION Bas edon th e fac ts be fo re u s, we co nc lu de th e Bet ty L yn II ret ai ne d a pr act ic al ab il it y

to en ga ge in m ari ti m e tr an sp ort an d i s, the refo re, a v es se l s ub ject t o m ari ti m e li en s an d t he di st ric t co urt’s ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED a nd REMANDED.

24