Clash Over Floating Home Reaches US Supreme Court Court documents refer to it as "that certain unnamed gray, two-story vessel approximately 57 feet in length." To Fane Lozman, it was a floating Florida home never intended to sail the seas. Now, a long-running dispute over exactly what the structure was has landed before the U.S. Supreme Court. Lozman, a 50-year-old former Chicago financial trader, seemingly lost his nearly six-year battle with the seaside city of Riviera Beach when his home was hauled away in 2009 and later destroyed by court order. But Lozman refused to give up, claiming officials vindictively and illegally targeted him for eviction from the city's marina because of his vocal opposition to a major redevelopment plan. "Whatever they had to do to get me out of there, they were going to do it," Lozman said. All I want to do is live a quiet life. I didn't look for this drama, it came to me because I wanted to stay at the marina. The only-in-Florida backstory matters less to the Supreme Court than a more fundamental question: When is something a vessel, and when is it not? The court agreed to take the case earlier this year and is expected to hear arguments in October. This undated photo provided by Fane Lozman shows his dismantled home in Riviera Beach, Fla. To Lozman, it was a floating Florida home never intended to sail the seas. Now a long-running dispute over exactly what the structure was has landed before the U.S. Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Fane Lozman) Close The vessel definition is crucially important to not only people who live on the water but also to major commercial businesses such as floating casinos, hotels and restaurants, said Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher. The outcome will determine whether federal maritime or state laws apply to structures that are moored, more or less permanently, in one place. "Federal maritime law is very different often than state law because it's crafted for the specific dangers and concerns of maritime commerce and navigation at sea," said Fisher, an experienced Supreme Court litigator who is handling Lozman's appeal. Here you have a question of federal law that has divided courts across the country. It's very significant. For example, owners of floating homes usually must pay property taxes, while those owning vessels under maritime law do not. Coast Guard regulations require certain levels of crew for vessels. The standards differ on what kinds and amounts of damages can be awarded in personal injury lawsuits. There are different rules aboard vessels for employment disputes and compensation for workers injured on the job. Owners of vessels and floating structures across the U.S. are closely watching the case so they know which set of laws to follow. "The most overarching concern in maritime law on the planet is uniformity," said David Weill, a maritime attorney in Long Beach, Calif., who isn't involved in Lozman's case. It's extremely important that shipping interests have uniform treatment as they go from port to port. Two federal appeals courts have ruled the owner's intent is key to determining whether a structure is a vessel. In Lozman's case, however, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that what mattered most was if a structure was "practically capable of transportation over water," which closely tracks the language in federal law that dates to the 1870s. Riviera Beach officials declined comment because of the pending legal case. But in documents urging the Supreme Court not to take the case, they insisted the structure was not similar to a land-based home that would be afforded important state law protections against seizure.