I was intrigued by this article that I saw in my hometown paper. I don’t really know anything about the relevant law, but why wouldn’t the salvager own the salvage rights?
The state says that federal law gives them ownership of “abandoned vessels on the Great Lakes bottomlands.” The French government says they still own the ship, as well.
Can anyone explain how this works? Thanks!
Law of property and ownership recognises quite a few states of property. Generally we’re familiar with states such as possession and ownership. If you ‘lose’ something you lose possession, but you haven’t lost ownership. Ownership doesn’t lapse because of mere time out of your possession.
The usual standard for lapse of ownership because of lack of possession is an act or series of acts which constitute giving up your right to the property or giving up the search for it. Rubbish for example, is thrown into a bin. A lost right shoe might be given up by throwing out the left shoe. A briefcase full of diamonds belonging to a recently deceased might be given up by the administratrix not including it in the estate.
If the French government never ‘gave up’ the wreck, then it is not abandoned as is required for Michigan to obtain ownership. However, I think it would be a pretty tenuous legal argument. Salvage law probably puts some other rules into play about abandonment but I can’t speak for US salvage law in that regard.
I believe that the key is that the French are claiming the ship was acting on behalf of the French crown. My (limited) understanding of salvage law is that a government does not lose rights to its ships, unlike private vessels. For example, when Ballard found the Bismarck, he was quoted as saying that the German government had forbidden any salvage, asserting that the Bismarck was a government ship. That’s why there is no Bismarck salvage company, unlike the company that someone set up to obtain salvage rights to the Titanic.
So can Michigan send France a bill for 330 years of storage?
what expenses has Michigan been put to?
Why is it only about recovering expenses?
Because as far as we know from the linked stories, there is no contract by which France agreed that Michigan would be storing the wreck, so Michigan does not have a claim in contract. In that sort of case, claims are usually based on quantum meruit - what reasonable expenses has the one party been put to, which it would be fair to require the other party to pay?
counting down until Gfactor weighs in with a link to a Michigan statute re recovery of wreck storage expenses: 10, 9, 8, …
The Abandoned Shipwreck Act gives title to all abandoned wrecks on its submerged land to the United States and to the states for wrecks on their submerged lands. 43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The key word is abandoned. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=992035P (ASA does not modify common law of abandonment).
On January 27, 2009, France filed a “Claim of Interest” that asserts it has not abandoned the wreck.
Sorry I’m late:
As the Sixth Circcuit Court of Appeals noted in a recent opinion in this case,
Great Lakes Exploration Group, LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked, 522 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2008).
So it boils down to a question of whether the wreck is abandoned, if it is, then salvage law doesn’t apply.
Yes, well, the French sort of vigorously, um, rejected said crown some years back as I recall. One would think that an argument could be made that since the crown ceased to be, said claims to anything formerly owned by that crown are null and void. After all, they haven’t demanded the return of the Hope Diamond, and it used to be in the crown!
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
On January 27, 2009, France filed a “Claim of Interest” that asserts it has not abandoned the wreck.
[/QUOTE]
But did His Most Christian Majesty, of whom the current French Republic is the successor in international law, surrender his claim to the wreck, an aspect of his Crown sovereignty, in the general surrender of sovereignty over Canada to His Britannick Majesty in Article IV of the Treaty of Paris, 1763, which claim in turn now would be held by Her Majesty in Right of Canada?
[QUOTE=The definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his Britannick Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the King of Spain. Concluded at Paris the 10th day of February, 1763. To which the King of Portugal acceded on the same day]
IV.… Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence, and in general, every thing that depends on the said countries, lands, islands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, property, possession, and all rights acquired by treaty, or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the Crown of France have had till now over the said countries, lands, islands, places, coasts, and their inhabitants, so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King, and to the Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form, without restriction, and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty under any pretence, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned.
[/QUOTE]
Truly, these are deep waters, Watson.
So how often is a shipwreck actually abandoned then, and how does that work?
As Norther Piper says, abandonment is not implied for sovereigns. So the country pretty much has to say “we don’t want it.” No idea how often that happens.
Upon reading Michigan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, it looks like France’s claim was filed months after a court-imposed deadline.
the claim reads:
In accordance with principles, customs, and usages of international law, the general maritime law, and the laws of the United States and France . . . .
From this site which I have no idea how accurate it is, but which isn’t obviously put up by some nutjob::
1, 2, 3, looking good. Hmmm… 4 looks more difficult, especially the “expected to be paid” part.
Later on that same page, though, it says
Those three look arguable.
What if France decides to leave it there another hundred years or so? More free storage?
So the Pope gave up his claim? 
Actually, wouldn’t those claims have continued to the U.S. following one of our wars with England?
[in joke for lawyers/law students] Property ownership – it all starts with unsportsmanlike fox hunting in Queens [[ijfl/ls]
The law of maritime salvage is a tricky thing. I learned a bit about it in my admiralty law class in law school, but have forgotten all of the details. However, I think I remember some of the basics.
Salvage occurs when a vessel is in some maritime peril (e.g. on fire, sinking, on the rocks, etc.) and another person or vessel (the salvor) assists in recovering the vessel, its crew and/or its cargo. When this happens, the salvor can apply to the admiralty court for a salvage award against the vessel’s owner, which is computed based on the value of the vessel, the amount of recovery, the risks faced by the salvor, and other factors. Essentially, the value of the vessel is divided between the salvor and the owner.
What I gather is the question here is whether the ship is abandoned property, which would be owned by Michigan, with the value of any property recovered split between the salvor and the state, or whether France still has ownership/control of the ship (though some maritime doctrine with which I am not familiar), in which case the value would be split between the salvor and France.
The ASA bars salvage claims. So as the appellate court noted in this case, if the propety is abandoned, the salvor gets nothing.
I don’t think 1 looks good. What service, really? It just lay there in a place no one wanted to use for anything else anyway. 3 is a stretch also. You’re really reaching to say that the French used etc the service when they didn’t even know it was being done for them and didn’t know where the vessel was.
This is what keeps lawyers in business. Spain has been involved in quite a few disputes of this sort and several issues come up like whether the ship in question was owned by the government of Spain or by private individuals, whether or not the wreck’s title of property may have passed together with Florida to other entities, etc.
All this serves so that the modern day pirates can have time to hide as much as they can, the lawyers walk away with a tidy amount and the rightful owners, whoever they may be, get a few trinkets.