Florida Bank Sues to Seize Yacht “Tail Wind” After Loan Default by Miami Boat Owner
BayFirst National Bank has filed a maritime foreclosure lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the luxury motor yacht Tail Wind and its registered owner, Naeem Danial Malik of Miami, Florida. The lawsuit, filed under Case No. 1:25-cv-23731-RKA, seeks to enforce a preferred ship mortgage and recover over $420,000 in outstanding debt following multiple loan defaults.
Yacht Owner Allegedly Defaulted on Over $400K Boat Loan for 2024 NX360 Sport Coupe Purchased in Florida
According to the complaint, Malik obtained a $410,503.85 loan from BayFirst National Bank in July 2024 to finance the purchase of a 2024 NX360 Sport Coupe, a high-performance luxury boat equipped with twin Mercury Verado 300 V8 outboard engines. To secure the loan, Malik executed a Consumer Loan Agreement, Security Agreement, and a First Preferred Ship Mortgage, all of which were recorded with the U.S. Coast Guard as required under maritime law.
The bank alleges that Malik failed to make payments due in August, September, and again starting in January 2025. A formal notice of default and acceleration was issued in April 2025, demanding full repayment of the outstanding balance. As of that date, the bank claims the total debt owed—including unpaid principal, interest, and late fees—exceeds $420,000.
BayFirst Seeks In Rem Foreclosure of Vessel “Tail Wind” and Personal Judgment Against Owner Naeem Malik
The lawsuit brings two counts under maritime law: (1) In rem foreclosure of the preferred ship mortgage against the vessel Tail Wind, and (2) In personam breach of contract against Malik individually. BayFirst asserts that the yacht is subject to seizure under 46 U.S.C. § 31325 and Rule C of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules. The bank is asking the court to issue a warrant for the arrest and judicial sale of the vessel.
BayFirst is also seeking a money judgment against Malik for the full amount of the debt, as well as recovery of attorneys’ fees and all costs associated with enforcing the ship mortgage. According to the court filing, the bank has retained counsel and begun proceedings to seize the yacht, which is reportedly docked in Miami.
Court Filing Highlights Bank’s Use of Preferred Ship Mortgage to Enforce Maritime Debt on Recreational Yacht
Preferred ship mortgages are a powerful tool for lenders under U.S. maritime law. When properly recorded, these liens give banks priority rights over the vessel, allowing them to enforce payment directly through seizure and sale—even if the borrower is personally insolvent. The lawsuit against Tail Wind illustrates how these legal mechanisms can be used not only for commercial ships but also for recreational vessels with significant loan balances.
This case reflects the increasing use of federal admiralty courts in Florida to resolve disputes involving luxury boats, particularly in areas like Miami, where high-end yachts are common collateral for marine loans. The foreclosure proceeding underscores the importance of compliance with maritime lending terms and the legal risks boat owners face when falling behind on payments.
Contact a Maritime Foreclosure and Boat Loan Defense Lawyer in Florida
Boat owners facing repossession or foreclosure under a preferred ship mortgage may have legal defenses, especially when disputes arise over default notices, loan terms, or vessel arrests. Maritime law affords lenders powerful remedies, but borrowers may still challenge enforcement actions in admiralty court. If you have been served in a vessel foreclosure case or have questions about your rights under a marine loan, it is essential to seek experienced legal counsel.
Contact us today to speak with a Florida maritime foreclosure lawyer and protect your interests in vessel seizure or lien enforcement proceedings.
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.
