Sendowski v. M/Y Monarch
What Happened
A man named Janusz Sendowski sued over a 1992 98-foot yacht called the M/Y Monarch. As part of the lawsuit, he had the vessel legally “arrested”, a maritime law procedure that puts the boat in the custody of the court while the case plays out. During that time, the Substitute Custodian watched over and maintained the vessel inquiring at a significant cost. Sendowski was footing the entire bill, even though two other parties, Blue Sea 1, LLC (another claimant) and BMO Bank (the lender with a mortgage on the vessel), also had financial stakes in the boat and benefited from it being kept in good condition.
The Legal Question
Who has to pay for the cost of keeping an arrested vessel maintained while litigation is pending? Does it all fall on the party who arrested the vessel, or can those costs be shared?
The Law
The court looked at Local Admiralty Rule E(5)(b) and a binding Eleventh Circuit case, Donald D. Forsht Associates v. Transamerica ICS (1987), which together give courts the authority, and flexibility, to allocate custodial costs equitably among all parties who benefit from the vessel’s preservation, not just the one who initiated the arrest.
The Ruling & Rationale
The Magistrate Judge recommended, and the District Judge agreed, that it would be unfair to stick Sendowski with 100% of the bill simply because he was the one who pulled the trigger on the arrest. All three parties (Sendowski, Blue Sea 1, and BMO Bank) stood to benefit from the boat being properly maintained. So the court split the costs equally three ways with each party paying one-third, including reimbursing Sendowski for what he already paid out.
Neither Blue Sea 1 nor BMO Bank formally objected to this outcome, which made adoption of the recommendation straightforward.
Bottom Line
If you arrest a vessel in a maritime dispute, you don’t have to carry the entire financial burden of maintaining it alone. Courts have the equitable power to spread custodial costs among all parties who have a financial interest in the vessel’s condition. The practical lesson: if you’re a lender or competing claimant on an arrested vessel, expect to share in the upkeep costs. And if you’re the arresting party, don’t assume you’re stuck with the whole bill. Instead, move early to compel cost-sharing.