Park At Your Own Risk: Does An Implied Wharfage Contract Apply To Floating Docks?

SPM Management LLC v. Motor Yacht Sea Ayre V, No. 18-1236, 2018 WL 6720634 (4th Cir. 2018); SPM Management LLC v. Motor Yacht SEA AYRE V, No. 18-1236, LEXIS 35889 (4th Cir. 2018).

By: Luke Charles Norris

In the case at hand, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an action in favor of the plaintiffs, SPM Management LLC, to impose a maritime lien on the claimants, the Sea Ayre V. The action to claim unpaid rent arose from an implied wharfage contract between the plaintiff and claimant that was formed when the claimant docked at a T-head floating dock owned and operated by the plaintiff, SPM Management LLC. The claimant sets out two arguments: (1) that because the dock was a floating structure and waterfronts are dynamic environments, the dock shifted and thus the boat was docked outside of the property of the plaintiff; and (2) that because the floating dock “is a fixture”[1], the plaintiffs have no right of ownership “due to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s sovereign ownership of subaqueous lands.”[2]The Commonwealth bestowed control of objects located above the subaqueous bed, but it is also given authority to relieve control to those developments located over its water bottoms. The court held that the plaintiff could assert an ownership claim, more specifically an implied dockage contract, on the dock because it does not involve the waterway bed, and the plaintiff provided perfect paper title of the land boundaries and improvements made to the land in question. The court concluded by enforcing the implied dockage contract and the maritime lien to recover $10,124.80 in unpaid rent[1] Id. at 2[2] Id.