“The Family Time Doctrine”: Eleventh Circuit Holds that Alleged Post-Service Damage Does Not Defeat a Maritime Lien and Confirms Expedited Sale Power after Owner’s Delay

Introduction

In Naval Logistics, Inc. v. M/V Family Time, No. 24-13172 (11th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit confronted a classic triad of admiralty issues: (1) entitlement to a maritime lien for “necessaries,” (2) appointment of a substitute custodian, and (3) interlocutory sale of an arrested vessel. The dispute arose after Middle Point Marina (“the Marina”) furnished inspection and dockage services to the pleasure craft M/V Family Time, whose owner, Andrew Vilenchik, neither paid the invoices nor removed the vessel. When storage fees mounted, the Marina arrested the vessel in rem and sued Vilenchik in personam.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, though unpublished, crystallises two practical rules that are likely to echo throughout admiralty practice:

Allegations that the provider damaged the vessel do not vitiate an otherwise valid maritime lien; such allegations must be pursued, if at all, in counter- or cross-claims.
A district court may order an interlocutory sale when an owner’s unreasonable delay causes storage costs to swell, even if fewer than twelve months have passed since arrest.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court had (i) recognised the Marina’s lien and granted summary judgment, (ii) appointed the Marina as substitute custodian in lieu of the U.S. Marshal, and (iii) ordered interlocutory sale of the vessel. On appeal, Vilenchik pressed four arguments: lack of a valid lien, improper custodian appointment, improper sale order, and procedural unfairness in denying a late counterclaim. The Eleventh Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed across the board:

The undisputed facts satisfied 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a)’s elements for a lien.
Any alleged hull damage was irrelevant to lien creation.
The Marina met all criteria for custodian appointment under Supplemental Rule E and the Southern District of Florida Local Admiralty Rules.
Escalating storage costs and the owner’s eight-month inaction justified interlocutory sale under Supplemental Rule E(9).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

46 U.S.C. §§ 31301, 31342 – Maritime Lien Act: Defines “necessaries” and creates statutory liens.
Galehead, Inc. v. M/V Anglia, 183 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1999): Three-part test for lien creation (necessaries, to a vessel, on owner’s order).
Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005): Clarifies “necessaries” and apparent authority.
Donald D. Forsht Assocs., Inc. v. Transamerica ICS, Inc., 821 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1987): Endorses use of substitute custodians.
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims, Rule E: • E(4)(b) (custodian), • E(9) (interlocutory sale).
S.D. Fla. Local Admiralty Rule E(10)(a): Express preference for substitute custodians.

The panel drew heavily on these authorities, but its distinctive contribution lies in the interplay it articulated between alleged post-service torts and lien validity: the lien springs into existence the moment necessaries are supplied on the owner’s order; later disputes, including negligent repairs, do not extinguish it.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

Lien Entitlement
• Dockage and inspection are statutory “necessaries.”
• Vilenchik personally signed the Shipyard Agreement, establishing both ownership and apparent authority.
• Non-payment is undisputed; therefore no genuine issue of material fact exists.
Effect of Alleged Damage
The panel emphasised that § 31342(a) contains no caveat nullifying a lien upon later negligence. The proper procedural vehicle is a counterclaim; until proven and offset at judgment, the lienholder remains secured. This marks the decision’s most salient doctrinal clarification—the “Family Time Doctrine.”
Substitute Custodian
The Marina already possessed the vessel, carried insurance, and indemnified the Marshal. No evidence of conflict or risk was proffered; thus, the district court stayed within the wide discretion recognised in Forsht.
Interlocutory Sale
Rule E(9)(a)(i)(B) authorises sale when custody expenses become “excessive.” Storage had exceeded $25,000, with no bond or retrieval effort for eight months. The panel endorsed the district court’s prudential calculus: admiralty courts are courts of equity and need not preside over waste.
Procedural Rulings
The untimely counterclaim was barred without abuse of discretion.

3. Impact of the Decision

While unpublished, Eleventh Circuit non-argument calendar opinions guide district courts within the circuit and influence maritime practitioners nationally. Key expected effects include:

Strengthened Lien Predictability – Service providers can rely on lien security even when owners allege subsequent damage, increasing willingness to extend credit for repairs, storage, or fuel.
Accelerated Custody & Sale Practice – District courts may feel emboldened to appoint substitute custodians and order interlocutory sales earlier, curbing spiralling expenses.
Litigation Strategy Shift – Vessel owners will need to act promptly—posting bond, filing verified claims, or negotiating—lest they lose the res to interlocutory sale.
Risk-Management for Shipyards – Mandates meticulous documentation: signed agreements, itemised invoices, and insurance coverage become critical because courts will treat them as prima facie evidence of a lien.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Maritime Lien – A secret, non-possessory security interest that “travels with” the vessel, arising automatically when necessaries are supplied.
Necessaries – Goods or services reasonably needed for a vessel’s operation (e.g., repairs, fuel, dockage).
In rem vs. In personam – In rem actions target the vessel itself; in personam actions target individuals or corporations.
Substitute Custodian – An entity approved by the court to guard the vessel in place of the U.S. Marshal, trimming costs while preserving the Marshal’s statutory immunity.
Interlocutory Sale – A court-ordered auction of arrested property before final judgment, to prevent waste or disproportionate expense.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s Family Time decision reaffirms core admiralty principles while introducing the clarifying “Family Time Doctrine”: alleged post-service damage is no shield against a statutory maritime lien. By simultaneously endorsing robust use of substitute custodians and early interlocutory sales, the court promotes efficiency and predictability in maritime commerce. Shipyards, marinas, and vessel owners alike must now navigate with sharper vigilance: liens attach swiftly, storage bills accumulate, and equity courts will not indulge unwarranted delay.