Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y DAYBREAK
| Decision Date | 27 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2909-CIV-MARCUS.,84-2909-CIV-MARCUS. |
| Citation | 677 F. Supp. 1563 |
| Parties | CHANTIER NAVAL VOISIN and Bernard Voisin Sarl Les Sports Nautiques De Cannes, Plaintiffs, v. M/Y DAYBREAK, her engines, tackle, appurtenances, etc., in rem, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
John Campbell, Holland and Knight, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
Charles C. Kline, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, Fla., for defendant.
Richard J. McAlpin, Mitchell, Harris, Horr & Assoc., P.A., Miami, Fla., for intervenors.
THIS ACTION was brought by Plaintiffs Chantier Naval Voisin and Bernard Voisin Sarl Les Sports Nautiques De Cannes seeking to recover under a maritime lien for services rendered and materials supplied to the vessel M/Y DAYBREAK. Intervenor, Florida Yacht Basin, seeks to recover for services provided as the court appointed substitute custodian of the defendant vessel. The Complaint was tried before the Court without a jury, and pursuant to Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
1. Plaintiffs, during the relevant period, operated a marine repair and supply business in Cannes, France. Chantier Naval Voisin ("Chantier Naval") is a yacht repair facility. Bernard Voisin Sarl Les Sports Nautiques De Cannes ("Bernard Voisin") is a related ship chandler.
2. The Defendant vessel is the M/Y DAYBREAK (the "vessel" or "DAYBREAK"), official number 671254.
3. The Claimant, Silhouette Charters, Inc. was the owner of the DAYBREAK at the time the vessel was arrested and has appeared in this action on behalf of the DAYBREAK.
4. Intervenor, Marine Supply Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, asserted a claim for a maritime lien for necessaries rendered to the Defendant vessel. This Court entered judgment on its claim September 5, 1986.
5. Intervenor, Florida Yacht Basin, a Florida corporation, has asserted a claim based upon services rendered to the vessel in its capacity as substitute custodian.
6. During the period beginning November 1982 until a date on or about April 1983, the Plaintiffs performed certain work upon and supplied certain materials to a vessel known as the Naque I.
a. "Abstract of Accepted Items in Estimate" Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20A details the work performed by Chantier Naval on the vessel. This document lists 64 separate items and the total cost was 2,197,249 French francs.
b. None of the work performed on the vessel was essential for her navigation. Voisin Dep. at 31.
c. Some of the work performed was important to maintain the vessel Id. at 32, including, inter alia, painting, work on the fuel tanks, generators, engine room blowers, valves and the main engines.
d. Most of the work was performed for the "pleasure of the user." Id. at 31.
7. Supplies were furnished by Plaintiff Bernard Voisin to the Naque I. The cost of those supplies were 217,573 French francs. Plaintiff's Exhibits 22a-24a. These supplies were not essential to the vessel's navigation. Id. at 33.
8. Eighty percent of the costs for the work performed on the vessel by Chantier Naval were paid by the owner of the Naque I. The vessel left the port in or about April 1983 although the balance of the bills remained unpaid.
9. The entire balance of the amount due Bernard Voisin for supplies was never paid.
10. After leaving the shipyard, the vessel traveled to Monaco and St. Tropez during the period between April 1983 and the middle of September 1983.
11. On June 10, 1983, the owner of the Naque I agreed to the following payment schedule:
Due Date Amount
June 10, 1983 $20,000 (U.S.)
July 11, 1983 $20,000 (U.S.)
July 26, 1983 $20,000 (U.S.)
September 16, 1983 $40,000 (U.S.)
The June 10 payment was received by Chantier Naval on August 31, 1983. The other payments were never made.
12. In mid-September, the vessel travelled to Palima de Mallorca and Ibez, Spain. On or about October 26, 1983, Plaintiffs obtained an order to seize or arrest the vessel in Ibez. However, the seizure did not occur because the vessel departed Ibez before the seizure could be effected.
13. The vessel traveled form Spain to the United States. Voisin was informed in late 1983 that the vessel was in the United States, however, he was unable to locate it. On or about October 1984, Voisin located the vessel in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
14. Plaintiffs caused the Defendant vessel to be arrested on December 12, 1984, in Ft. Lauderdale, claiming that it was the former Naque I and that they held maritime liens for labor and materials furnished to the Naque I.
15. Between the time the work was performed on the Naque I and June 11, 1984, the name of that vessel was changed to the M/Y ARIZ. Subsequently, the name of the vessel was again changed to the M/Y Daybreak.
16. We find that the M/Y DAYBREAK is the same vessel upon which the work in question was performed and the materials supplied by the Plaintiffs.
17. On June 11, 1984, vessel, official number 671254, known as the M/Y DAYBREAK ex ARIZ ex Naque I was sold by Ali Reza Shipping S.A. to Silhouette Charters, Inc. Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 49.
18. The work done by Chantier Naval was covered by proposals (estimates) approved by the captain or user of the Naque I. Included in the proposals were general conditions. One of the conditions contained the following language:
In case of difficulties or dispute, not amicably settled, Tribunal de Commerce de Nice will be the only competent court to judge them.
19. The DAYBREAK was under Court ordered in rem arrest from December 15, 1984 up to and including March 25, 1985. Intervenor was the Court Appointed Substitute Custodian of the DAYBREAK during this period.
20. Florida Yacht Basin as Court appointed custodian provided these services, and incurred the following costs:
Service Rate Period Total
Dockage $39/day 12/15/84-1/31/85 $1,872.00
48 days
Storage $54/day 2/1/85-3/25/85 2,862.00
53 days
Guard Service $150/day 12/17/84-3/25/85 14,850.00
99 days
Miscellaneous Goods and Services 6,479.91
21. The foregoing charges represent fair and reasonable charges incurred by the substitute custodian for the preservation of the DAYBREAK.
22. The DAYBREAK contained valuable antiquities and other removable items which could easily be sold if removed without authorization.
1. The underlying controversy in this case stems from a demand for payment for services and supplies rendered by French companies. The work was performed in France, and the contracts executed there. At the time the work was performed the vessel was registered in Panama. Subsequently, the vessel was arrested in the United States in order to enforce a purported lien. Plaintiffs suggest that under the facts of this case, United States law must be applied. The Defendant maintains that the law of France is applicable.
The first step in resolving this choice of law question is to determine whether, in fact, the laws of France and the United States are in conflict. Under 46 U.S.C. § 971, "any person furnishing repairs, supplies ... or other necessaries, to any vessel whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem...." Given the facts of this case, as described supra, there can be little doubt that had they occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States, a maritime lien in favor of the Plaintiffs would have arisen.
2. The source of a maritime lien under French law is not as obvious. The parties submit that a maritime lien may "arise" under the circumstances of this case from three sources: First, the French Law of January 4, 1967; second, the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, Brussels, May 10, 1952, 439 U.N.T.S. 193, reprinted in 6A Benedicts on Admiralty Doc. 8-1 (7th ed. 1987) hereinafter the "Brussels Convention 1952"; and, third, the International Convention Regarding Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Laws and Mortgages, Brussels, April 10, 1926, 120 L.N.T. S. 187, reprinted in 6A Benedicts on Admiralty Doc. 8-2 (7th ed. 1987) hereinafter the "Brussels Convention 1926". Defendant contends that this Court may not find, based on the substance of Plaintiffs' expert witness testimony concerning French law, that a maritime lien could have arisen under these laws. The expert, Michael Touffait, asserted that a lien arises under the Brussels Convention 1952 and not under the other two sources of law. Defendants contend that the Brussels Convention 1952 merely embodies the procedural rules regarding the arrest of a vessel and provides no substantive basis for the creation of a lien. Further, Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs should be bound by the declaration of its expert witness and that therefore they have not identified any basis for the existence of a maritime lien in their favor.
3. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1, it is clear that while the court may accept evidence submitted by the parties as to the proof of foreign law, it is not bound by the evidence submitted and may make its own investigation and consider "any relevant material or source," id., concerning the foreign law. Accordingly, we are not bound by the substance of the Plaintiffs' expert witness.
4. We note that both the Brussels Convention 1926, as well as the French Law of January 4, 1967 contains this language:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfizer Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.
...contract interpretation. The Court is free to disregard the Axster Affidavit under Rule 44.1. See, e.g., Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1567 (S.D.Fla.1988) (court not bound by evidence submitted by party's expert on foreign law). See also Banque Libanaise Pour Le C......
-
Edumoz, LLC v. Republic Mozambique
...that the court had discretion to disregard a foreign attorney's affidavit on foreign law under Rule 44.1); Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1567 (S.D.Fla.1988) (“Under Fed. R.Civ.P. 44.1, it is clear that while the court may accept evidence submitted by the parties a......
-
Garcia v. M/V Kubbar
...denied, Quintero v. Torvald Klaveness & Co., A/S, 499 U.S. 925, 111 S.Ct. 1322, 113 L.Ed.2d 255 (1991); Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1568 (S.D.Fla.1988). See also Pandazopoulos v. Universal Cruise Line, Inc., 365 F.Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (importance of allegian......
-
Anglo American Ins. Group, PLC v. CalFed, Inc.
...is certainly relevant to the court's interpretation of the statute, it is not binding on the court. Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1567 (S.D.Fla.1988). Given the sharply conflicting constructions emanating from such eminent sources, the court is justified in reachi......