Huntington Bank v. M/Y Something About Meri et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
CASE NO. 25-61018-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
M/Y SOMETHING ABOUT MERI, her engines,
machinery, 	tackle, 	apparel, 	boats, 	furniture,
equipment, 	rigging, 	freights, 	and 	all 	other
necessary 	appurtenances, 	etc., 	in 	rem, 	and
STANLEY R. KALISH, in personam,
Defendant(s).
___________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Interlocutory Sale of the
Defendant Vessel, ECF No. 165, and Intervenor Danielle Morron’s Motion to Vacate the
Appointment of Substitute Custodian Nunc Pro Tunc, ECF No. 205. 	The Honorable
William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge, referred the Motions to the
undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. 	See ECF Nos. 166, 213; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. 	Having carefully reviewed the Motions, any
Responses or Replies, the entire case file, and applicable law, as well as argument from
the Parties at a January 8, 2026 hearing, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion be GRANTED
and Intervenor’s Motion be DENIED for the reasons outlined below.
BACKGROUND
This is a contentious matter involving the repossession of a ship due to its owner,
Stanley Kalish (hereinafter “Kalish”), being in arrears on his mortgage. The holder of that
Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
mortgage, Huntington National Bank (hereinafter “the Bank”), brought a claim alleging
that Kalish is in breach of his loan agreement. The Bank now asks the Court to allow the
sale of the vessel pursuant to Rule E(9) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
DISCUSSION
Rule E(9)(a) provides in pertinent part:
(i) On application of a party, the marshal, or other person having custody of
the property, the court may order all or part of the property sold—with the
sales proceeds, or as much of them as will satisfy the judgment, paid into
court to await further orders of the court—if:
(A) the attached or arrested property is perishable, or liable to
deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending
the action;
(B) 	the 	expense 	of 	keeping 	the 	property 	is 	excessive 	or
disproportionate; or
(C) there is an unreasonable delay in securing release of the
property.
The Bank, noting that you only need to meet one requirement, argues all of these
apply, and asks this Court to allow the ship to be sold. 	The owner of the ship, Kalish,
does not oppose the sale. 	The only response comes from Intervenor Danielle Morron
(“Morron”), an individual who was allowed to intervene in this case but who now appears
to have no valid claim upon the vessel. See ECF Nos. 223 and 226.
Notwithstanding Morron’s inability to argue against the sale, even were the Court
to entertain her arguments, they are without merit. Morron first argues that the Bank does
not have a valid claim to the ship. 	The undersigned has addressed this argument in a
previous Report and Recommendation currently pending before the Court. In that Report
and Recommendation, which followed a full evidentiary hearing, the Court found ample
Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
evidence supporting the Bank’s claim. 	ECF No. 223. 	None of Morron’s arguments on
this point are meritorious.
Morron next argues that any change in the condition of the ship was the Bank’s
own fault and therefore cannot be considered. Even if this were true, the Bank need meet
only one of the Rule E(9)(a) criteria. 	See, e.g. Turner v. Neptune Towing & Recovery,
Inc., No. 8:09-CV-1071-T-27AEP, 2010 WL 11651427, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2010)
(allowing the sale of a vessel based solely on unreasonable delay). 	There is ample
evidence to support a sale under both the excessive expense and unreasonable delay
criteria.
This Court ordered the arrest of the ship on June 16, 2025, meaning it has been
under arrest for approximately six months. Courts have often found delays of more than
four months to be unreasonable. 	See, e.g., Regions Bank v. Motor Yacht ROYAL
INDULGENCE, No. 3:10CV100/LAC/EMT, 2010 WL 4595792, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 13,
2010), 	report 	and 	recommendation 	adopted, 	No. 	3:10CV100/LAC/EMT, 	2010 	WL
4595729 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2010) (collecting cases). 	Additionally, there are significant
continuing costs to holding the ship in storage. 	Plaintiff has provided an affidavit from
Marc Hoffman, the Bank’s Vice President. 	ECF No. 165-2. 	Hoffman attests that there
are ongoing custodian fees of $50.00 per day, dockage fees of $276.00 per day, and hull
insurance of $900.00 per month. ECF No. 165-2. The storage costs for the vessel total
more than $10,000.00 per month. 	Id. 	“Courts are not required to let storage costs
accumulate indefinitely in the hope that the owner might eventually act.” Naval Logistics,
Inc. v. M/V FAMILY TIME, No. 24-13172, 2025 WL 1733999, at *3 (11th Cir. June 23,
2025) (finding a sale justified after the accumulation of $25,000 in custodial fees).
Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
The Bank has submitted ample justification for an interlocutory sale, and Kalish,
the owner of the vessel and the only one with any standing to challenge the Bank’s
Motion, has not opposed the sale. 	Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted. 	Further, given
Morron’s lack of standing and the undersigned’s recommendation that the ship be sold at
auction, the undersigned sees no need to consider her Motion to Vacate the Appointment
of Substitute Custodian Nunc Pro Tunc, ECF No. 205. That Motion should therefore be
denied.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
Intervenor Danielle Morron’s Motion to Vacate the Appointment of Substitute
Custodian Nunc Pro Tunc, ECF No. 205, be DENIED; and
Plaintiff's Motion for Interlocutory Sale of the Defendant Vessel, ECF No. 165, be
GRANTED. The Court should enter an Order providing:
(a) for the sale of the Vessel, her engines, machinery, tackle, apparel, boats, furniture,
equipment, rigging, freights, and all other necessary appurtenances, etc., by the
United States Marshal, Southern District of Florida at public auction to the highest
bidder free and clear of all liens from any preexisting claims of the Vessel, whether
recorded or otherwise, as provided in Supplemental Rule E(9)(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, within ninety (90) days;
(b) that notice of such sale be made by advertisement pursuant to the Rule of the
Court, and that the reasonable cost of such advertisement shall constitute a
taxable cost in this action;
Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
(c) that the Bank be entitled to credit bid all or part of any quantum of its claim at the
judicial sale for the Vessel. The Bank must also provide the Court affidavit support
as to the total amount owed under the ship’s mortgage inclusive of all substitute
custodian costs no less than 15 days prior to the scheduled sale of the vessel;
(d) that the proceeds of such sale, upon confirmation by the Court, be paid by the
United States Marshal into the registry of this Court to await and abide further order
of this Court.
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely
object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	contained 	in 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
DONE and SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of January
2026.
________________________________
PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas
All counsel of record
Danielle Morron
3401 SW Sawgrass Villas Dr., 11-C
Palm City, FL 34990
PRO SE
Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 227 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2026 Page 5 of 5