Hatteras/Cabo Yachts, LLC v. M/Y Epic, in rem

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 21-2241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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