Delaware Company Sues Florida-Based Yacht Builder Limitless Seas Over Ownership and Possession of 45-Foot Motor Yacht M/Y Ponyo
Raizender Yachting Ltd., a Delaware corporation, has filed a maritime lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Florida-based Limitless Seas Inc. and the 45-foot luxury yacht M/Y Ponyo. Filed under Case No. 1:25-cv-24469-DSL, the complaint seeks to enforce Raizender’s ownership rights and regain possession of the yacht, citing breach of a settlement agreement and wrongful detention of the vessel.
Yacht Ownership Dispute Centers on Sale, Settlement Agreement, and Alleged Misuse of M/Y Ponyo by Florida Boat Builder
According to the verified complaint, Raizender Yachting Ltd. (“RYL”) purchased the vessel from Limitless Seas Inc. (“LLS”) on July 14, 2023, for $504,000 pursuant to a written purchase agreement. The yacht, a 2023 Limitless Seas XLV-102, was delivered with legal title, and RYL subsequently registered the vessel in the United Kingdom as M/Y Ponyo, with the official number 193331.
Months later, the two parties entered into a profit-sharing agreement in July 2024 that allowed LLS to sell the yacht on RYL’s behalf, with a promise to split the net sale proceeds evenly. The agreement also required that if the vessel was not sold within two months of arriving in the U.S., Limitless Seas would refund RYL’s investment. The yacht was never sold, and RYL alleges that LLS failed to issue the promised refund.
Delaware Yacht Owner Alleges Breach of Settlement Deal and Misappropriation of Yacht by Florida Defendant
In March 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which Limitless Seas agreed to pay Raizender $504,000 by March 31, 2025, and to continue efforts to sell the vessel transparently. In return, Raizender allowed LLS to retain possession of the vessel during the sales period.
However, the lawsuit alleges that Limitless Seas breached this agreement by failing to make the payment or provide the required sales updates. Furthermore, RYL claims that LLS has refused to disclose the yacht’s location or allow inspections, and is using the yacht for unauthorized purposes, including alleged illegal chartering for its own benefit.
Raizender Yachting Seeks Vessel Possession Through Admiralty Claim Under Rule D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Asserting its legal title through the original purchase agreement and registration documents, Raizender has invoked Supplemental Admiralty Rule D, seeking a court order to arrest the M/Y Ponyo and restore possession. The complaint includes both a breach of contract claim and a petitory and possessory action, asserting that Raizender remains the rightful owner and has been wrongfully deprived of its property.
Raizender is requesting that the court issue a warrant for the yacht’s arrest and declare that RYL holds legal title. Additionally, the plaintiff seeks damages of at least $504,000, along with attorney’s fees, court costs, and any additional relief the court deems appropriate.
Legal Dispute Highlights Risks of Boat Sale Profit-Sharing Agreements and Importance of Vessel Possession Under Maritime Law
This case underscores the legal complexities involved in shared-sale and profit agreements for high-value maritime assets. Disputes over title, possession, and use of vessels often lead to litigation when one party alleges breach or misuse. Under maritime law, legal title holders can pursue in rem actions to recover possession, especially when agreements break down and the vessel remains unsold or in use by the other party.
Contact a Maritime Vessel Ownership Dispute Lawyer in Florida
If you are involved in a maritime contract dispute, vessel sale disagreement, or are seeking to recover a yacht wrongfully held by another party, you may be entitled to relief through maritime law and in rem vessel proceedings. Our legal team has extensive experience in litigating vessel ownership and possession claims in federal admiralty courts.
Contact us today to speak with an experienced Florida maritime lawyer about your case.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
