R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel

Citations: 920 F. Supp. 96; 1996 A.M.C. 2986; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4220Docket: Civil Action No. 2:93cv902

Court: District Court, E.D. Virginia; March 31, 1996; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John S. Joslyn filed a Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) seeking to rescind the Court’s June 7, 1994 Order that designated R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. (RMSTI) as the salvor in possession of the RMS Titanic. The Court must first determine whether Joslyn has standing to make this motion and, if not, whether it can reconsider the Order on its own initiative. The Court finds that Joslyn does have standing, as he is considered a party under Rule 60(b) despite not being a named party in the original action. The Court cites Fourth Circuit precedent stating that in rem actions bind all parties with interests in the property, allowing anyone to seek relief from the judgment. Joslyn argues that RMSTI's status should be rescinded due to its lack of diligent salvage efforts and future intentions, while RMSTI contends that Joslyn lacks standing. Ultimately, the Court recognizes Joslyn's standing and affirms its authority to reassess the prior Order.

The Court has the discretionary authority to raise the issue of RMSTI’s status as salvor in possession without a formal motion, as established in Fourth Circuit precedent. The Court can act in the interest of justice when circumstances warrant, as noted in United States v. Jacobs. The current case involves salvage rights for a historically significant vessel, which is considered unusual. Existing case law indicates that salvors can lose their possessory rights if they fail to diligently pursue salvage operations, suggesting that a mechanism must exist for challenging salvor status after it has been granted. This is crucial to uphold the purpose of salvage law, which is to ensure the recovery of vessels. Joslyn's motion claims RMSTI is neglecting its salvage rights, risking the opportunity to recover the RMS Titanic. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to assess whether RMSTI is effectively utilizing its rights, as the interests of justice and public benefit necessitate a reevaluation of its previously granted salvor-in-possession status. The Court initially granted RMSTI exclusive rights with the expectation that it would lead to the successful salvaging of the Titanic and prevent looting.

The Court holds that if a salvor in possession, such as RMSTI, does not exercise the rights granted by the Court, those rights may be rescinded. Joslyn’s filing raises concerns about RMSTI's diligence in pursuing its rights as salvor in possession. Under the precedent set in Jacobs, the Court has the authority to reassess the enforcement of its prior Order. The original Order recognized RMSTI as the salvor in possession of the Titanic wreck and granted it exclusive salvage rights. The Court retains the discretion to determine if RMSTI still qualifies as salvor in possession. Consequently, Joslyn is deemed to have standing to file a Rule 60(b) motion, and the Court can address this issue independently or through its inherent authority. A hearing on Joslyn's request is granted. The original Order states that RMSTI is the sole owner of salvaged items and that claims from potential claimants who have not filed are barred. Salvage operations are limited to June, July, and August due to weather conditions, and the ruling binds all parties in the admiralty case.