Not really all that informative. I wish I had seen this sooner. I am fairly familiar with this case and with the law that the court interpreted. Under almost all US Federal laws and regulations, Vessel is clearly defined "(a) Vessel. The word vessel includes every description of water craft or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, but does not include aircraft." This is just one example. The court simply said that this house was not intended to be a means of transportation and thus was not a vessel. They used the old reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man consider this a vessel? They concluded that no a reasonable man would not, they would consider it a house. Frankly this is stuff you learn in business law 101. This case should never have gotten beyond the lower courts.

I am not an attorney but 34 years of enforcing laws for the Coast Guard teaches a person a lot about the law. I think the folks who took this guys house and destroyed it should be charged with a crime as well as remibursing him.