2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 48835 [March 19, 2024]
The District Court in the Eastern District of California was asked to confirm a vessel sale. The vessel’s owner, Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, objected alleging the plaintiff’s inventory of non-appurtenant property omitted a substantial amount of non-appurtenant property. Essentially, the owner objected to the extent her personal property may be destroyed with the vessel.
The court was sympathetic to the owner’s position. However, the court noted that the case had been pending for over a year during which time the vessel sat, decayed and incurred custia legis costs. Meanwhile, the owner offered no clear solution for removing her personal property from the vessel in the near future.
The court confirmed the sale. It also ordered any destruction of the vessel be delayed for at least 30 days so the owner can remove her personal property. The court ordered that the plaintiff was not to bear any expenses associated with removing the property. Unfortunately, the court did not order *who* was to bear the expense which opens the matter up to ambiguity and further motion practice.