Court Opinion

ID: 9371782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 21:00:37.988456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:30.036140
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241      Doc: 63           Filed: 02/15/2023   Pg: 1 of 5

                                              UNPUBLISHED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: 2 of 5

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2241      Doc: 63         Filed: 02/15/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        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 necessaries 1 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

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

                 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.

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

                                                  5