Rainwater v. M/V Sea Encounter (1986)

Citation: 3 Am. Samoa 2d 87 · Court: High Court of American Samoa · Decided: October 30, 1986

Source note (2026-10-18):

  • Links on this page to https://static.case.law/am-samoa-2d/3/cases/0087-01.json, https://static.case.law/am-samoa/4/cases/0983-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Facts

Preston Rainwater, a helicopter pilot, claimed USD 8,589.76 for tuna-spotting services from the purse seiner Sea Encounter. His lawyer served a summons on the captain’s brother aboard ship and took a clerk’s default judgment. When the vessel returned to Pago Pago in July 1986, police officers boarded and seized the ship’s motorboat, then its skiff, to collect. The owner posted a bond to release the ship and moved to set aside the default because a vessel must be served by arrest warrant, not summons. Rainwater filed a new in rem complaint and arrest papers twenty minutes before the court dismissed the first case. The vessel’s owner — a partnership — had already filed Chapter 11 in California.

Holding

  1. The first judgment was properly set aside: under the High Court’s admiralty rules (TCRCP Special Provisions, Actions in Rem, Rule C) a vessel is served by a warrant for its arrest; a dismissal for want of jurisdiction did not bar the refiled complaint.
  2. The High Court has in rem admiralty jurisdiction, expressly granted by A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (excluding “courts of the states”) does not apply, because the High Court is neither a federal district court nor a state court. StarKist v. M/V Conquest (App. Div.), holding that the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920 did not confer jurisdiction on the High Court, was distinguished.
  3. The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) applies to High Court proceedings. Because the vessel was arrested after the Chapter 11 filing, the court “never obtained jurisdiction over the Sea Encounter”; the in rem complaint was dismissed (in personam claims against others were dismissed for failure to state a claim).

Reasoning

A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(3) (as amended in 1975, after Vessel Fijian Swift v. Trial Division, 4 Am. Samoa 983 (1975), had found no in rem jurisdiction) gives the trial division “both in rem and in personam jurisdiction” in admiralty; the only federal court to consider it, Meaamaile v. American Samoa, 550 F. Supp. 1227 (D. Haw. 1982), found it consistent with federal law.

Practical impact

  • Buyers of vessels: an American Samoa marshal’s sale after a proper in rem arrest is an admiralty sale; a sale or seizure based on a defective summons-only judgment is vulnerable. Check whether the owner was in bankruptcy before the arrest — an arrest after a petition is void for jurisdiction.
  • Preferred ship mortgages: foreclosure under the federal ship-mortgage statute may not lie in the High Court (Conquest, as described in this opinion) — expect such foreclosures in a U.S. district court. See maritime-liens-and-preferred-ship-mortgages, admiralty-arrest-and-marshals-sale.
  • Creditors: police seizure of a ship’s boats to enforce a judgment that lacked in rem jurisdiction was undone by a bond and set-aside.

Good-law status

The asbar.org annotation to A.S.C.A. § 3.0208 (retrieved 2026-10-17, https://asbar.org/code-annotated/3-0208-jurisdiction-of-divisions/) cites this case for in rem jurisdiction. The Ship Mortgage Act has since been recodified (see maritime-liens-and-preferred-ship-mortgages); whether the recodified jurisdiction provision changes the Conquest result was not researched (needs_verification). Citator check not run.

Applies in →

american-samoa · see vessels, admiralty-arrest-and-marshals-sale, bankruptcy-automatic-stay

Sources


This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Verify the holding and its current treatment against the primary source and consult a licensed American Samoa attorney before acting. Last verified: 2026-10-17.