Verified Complaint Filed in Southern District of Florida to Enforce Maritime Lien and Arrest Vessel
Vannessa R. Lucier has filed an in rem admiralty action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking to arrest the 97-foot luxury motor yacht Happy to satisfy a $2.8 million state court judgment arising from a personal injury case brought under the Jones Act. The case, filed on April 28, 2025, is titled Vannessa R. Lucier v. The Motor Yacht Happy, her engines, tackle, gear, furniture, apparel, equipment, and other appurtenances, in rem, Case No. 0:25-cv-60814-DSL.
Florida Jury Awards Over $2.8 Million to Jones Act Seaman Injured Aboard M/Y Happy
Lucier previously brought suit in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida (Case No. CACE-24-006218), naming her employers, Happy Ending Charter, LLC, and William H. Brown, Jr., as defendants. The complaint alleged negligence and failure to provide maintenance and cure after Lucier suffered personal injuries while working aboard the M/Y Happy.
After the defendants failed to respond, defaults were entered and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on April 23 and 24, 2025. The jury returned a verdict of $2,761,134 in damages. The trial judge entered a final judgment in the amount of $2,837,194, including attorney’s fees, and expressly recognized the judgment as creating a maritime lien against the vessel.
Complaint Seeks Arrest and Judicial Sale of Luxury Yacht to Satisfy Maritime Judgment
Lucier’s federal complaint now seeks to enforce that maritime lien and arrest the vessel under Rule 9(h) and Supplemental Rule C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The filing requests issuance of a warrant of arrest in rem against the M/Y Happy, authorizing the U.S. Marshal to detain the vessel and its equipment pending judicial sale.
Citing Crabtree v. The Julia and Barnes v. Sea Hawai’i Rafting, LLC, the complaint argues that Lucier’s claims for maintenance, cure, and injury damages constitute preferred maritime liens enforceable against the vessel directly. The judgment operates as a maximum limitation on recovery for the claims already adjudicated in state court, consistent with the First Circuit’s decision in Pratt v. United States.
The M/Y Happy is described as a 97-foot, 153-ton yacht built by Hargrave in 2025, powered by Caterpillar engines. The vessel is believed to be located in the Southern District of Florida, satisfying venue requirements under Local Admiralty Rule C.
Broader Significance for Seamen and Maritime Creditors
Lucier’s action illustrates a potent remedy available to seamen injured in service of a vessel. When a shipowner fails to satisfy a state court judgment involving Jones Act and maintenance and cure claims, the injured party can proceed in federal court in rem against the vessel itself. This remedy is especially crucial when employers default or become judgment-proof, leaving the vessel as the only viable asset for recovery.
The case also emphasizes the enduring strength of maritime liens, which attach directly to the vessel and follow it regardless of ownership changes. For vessel operators and charter companies, the decision underscores the risks of neglecting maritime crew claims, especially those involving maintenance and cure, which courts have consistently treated as serious and lienable obligations.
Injured during employment aboard a private vessel? Contact a Cruise Ship Lawyer Today.
