Recovery Limited Partnership v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessell, S.S. Central America, et al.

Filing 192

ORDER Denying 139 Motion for Award of Title by Recovery Limited Partnership. Since the court determines that the admiralty law of salvage, not the common law of finds, applies to the Central America wreck, RLP's Motion is DENIED. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 8/10/15 and filed 8/11/15. Copies distributed to counsel for RLP 8/11/15. (ldab, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

RECOVERY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO:

2:87cv363

THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL,
S.S.

CENTRAL AMERICA,

ET AL.

Defendant.

OPINION

This

of

Title

matter

comes

("Motion")

before

and

filed by the Plaintiff,

the

court

Memorandum

in

on

the

Support

Motion

for

Award

("Memorandum"),

Recovery Limited Partnership ("RLP"),

on

September 5, 2014. ECF Nos. 13 9, 14 0.l The Motion is now ripe for
decision2 and, for the reasons set forth below, is DENIED.

1 The court declared RLP to be the real-party-in-interest in this
case in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 9, 2014. ECF
No. 92. That same day,

with Case No.

the court consolidated Case No.

2:87cv363.

Mem.

Order,

herein to a pre-consolidation filing,

2:14cvl60

ECF No. 94. Any reference
in Case No. 2:14cvl60,

is

designated as such.

2 Due to the pending appeal of this court's dismissal of thirdparty individual claims against the in rem Defendant,

the Motion

was not ripe for decision until July 31, 2015. See infra note 6
and accompanying text; see also Order of February 11, 2015, at 2
n.2, ECF No. 179 ("The court has not yet decided the Motion for
Award of Title,

and will not do so while the claims of Robol and

Davidson are pending appeal in the Fourth Circuit.").

I. Factual and Procedural History

The

instant

Motion

is

related

to

the

litigation over

the

salvage rights to the wreck of the S.S. Central America ("Central
America").

This in rem action has resulted in numerous opinions,

dating back to 1987. These opinions thoroughly review much of the
factual

and

procedural

history

relevant

to

this

extended

litigation, and that history will not be repeated in detail here.
The Central America sank off

the coast of

Charleston,

South

Carolina, on September 12, 1857, taking with it approximately 425
persons

and

$1,219,189

Shortly thereafter,

paid

claims

to

in

gold

(exclusive

of

passenger

gold).

insurance underwriters in New York and London

the

owners

of

the

gold.

The

underwriters

contemplated raising the wreck, but the location of the ship was
unknown.

ocean

The

floor

Discovery
location,

Central

until

Group

America

1989,

when

("CADG"),

approximately

and

its

treasure

RLP's

agent,

discovered

160

miles

off

the
the

remained

on

the

Columbus-America

wreck's
east

coast

precise
of

the

United States, and some one and one-half miles below the surface.

On August 14, 1990,

the court found that CADG,

already the

first salvor with the right to exclude others,3 was the finder and
sole

owner

Unidentified,

of

the

gold.

Columbus-America

Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel,

3 CADG had enjoyed the status of
salvage

the

Discovery

Central

America

court's Order of August 18, 198 9.

v.

742 F. Supp.

first salvor,

without

Grp.

interference,

entitled to
since

the

1327,

1344-48

however,

(E.D.

Va.

1990)

the Court of Appeals

the district
than the

court

law of

erred

salvage,

to

468

(1993).

(4th Cir.
On

entitled

1992)

remand,

to

a

salvage

recovered gold.

*32

(E.D.

wreck.

v.

Atl.

district

of

the

law

Mut.

cert,

court

ninety

of

Ins.

Nov.

18,

1993)

No.

Co.,

found

974

F.2d

507 U.S.

denied,

1000

that

percent

Columbus-America Discovery Grp.

Va.

appeal,

rather

Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel,
at

direct

gold recovered from the

the

award

On

finds,

("CADG II"),

the

I").

for the Fourth Circuit held that

in applying

Columbus-America Discovery Grp.
450,

("CADG

(90%)

v.

87-363-N,

CADG

1993 WL 580900,

("CADG III") . The Fourth Circuit

Mut. Ins. Co., 56 F.3d 556, 562, 576

and

the

underwriters

the

Unidentified,

affirmed this decision. Columbus-America Discovery Grp.

CADG

of

was

(4th Cir.

eventually

agreed

1995)

to

v.

Atl.

("CADG IV") .

a

settlement,

which "eliminate[d] the possibility of claims between the parties
over

future salvage."

Columbus-America Discovery

Grp.

v.

Atl.

Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 291, 300 (4th Cir. 2000) ("CADG V").

From CADG V until 2014, there were only infrequent filings
made

in

this

case.

On

January 3, 2014,

substituted as the real-party-in-interest,
CADG. ECF No. 1. On July 9, 2014,

RLP

moved

to

be

for the then-Plaintiff

the court granted RLP's Motion

to Substitute Party, and named RLP as the salvor-in-possession of

the Central America. Mem. Op. & Order at 26, ECF No. 92.4 In that
Order,

the

court noted that

"[s]alvors do

the salvaged property."

Id.

RLP

recovered

has

successfully

at 8

not

receive

(emphasis added).
thousands

of

title

to

Subsequently,

artifacts

(the

"recovered artifacts") from the wreck of the Central America.5
On April 17, 2014,
of

the

action

successive

and

weeks,

the

court ordered RLP

arrest

of

directing

the

that

Central

"any

to publish notice
America

persons

for

claiming

four

any

interest in the in rem Defendant file their respective claims and

4 Milton T. Butterworth, purportedly on behalf of CADG, filed a
Notice of Appeal as to this Order on August 8, 2014. See ECF
No. 116. The Fourth Circuit dismissed this appeal for failure to
prosecute on October 16,

2014. See ECF Nos.

168,

169.

5 See Decl. & Inventory, September 15, 2014, ECF No. 157; Decl. &
Inventory,
August 15, 2014,
ECF No. 120;
Decl.
& Inventory,
July 17, 2014, ECF No. 101; Letter & Inventory, June 16, 2014,
Case No. 2:14cvl60, ECF No. 63; Letter & Inventory, June 6, 2014,
Case No. 2:14cvl60, ECF No. 56; Letter & Inventory, May 16, 2014,
Case No. 2:14cvl60,
ECF No. 23; see
also Report to Court,
January 23, 2015, ECF No. 176 (2014 End of Year Report); Sixth
Report
Regarding
Salvage
Operations,
November 25, 2014,
ECF

No. 175 (detailing RLP's new deep search and survey tool and
describing the preservation of already-recovered artifacts);
Fifth Report Regarding Salvage Operations, September 25, 2014,
ECF No. 163 (summarizing RLP's recovery operations between
August 16, 2014, and September 15, 2014); Fourth Report Regarding
Salvage Operations, August 25, 2014, ECF No. 130 (summarizing
RLP's
recovery
operations
between
July 16, 2014,
and
August 15, 2014); Third Report Regarding Salvage Operations,

July 23, 2014, ECF No. 104 (summarizing RLP's recovery operations
between
June 16, 2014,
and
July 15, 2014);
Second
Report
Regarding Salvage Operations, June 24, 2014, Case No. 2:14cvl60,
ECF No.
90
(summarizing RLP's recovery operations between
May 14, 2014, and June 15, 2014); First Report Regarding Salvage
Operations,

May 15, 2014,

(summarizing

RLP's

and May 13, 2014).

Case

No.

recovery operations

2:14cvl60,

ECF

No.

21

between April 15, 2014,

Answers to the Complaint with the clerk of the Court within 30
days

of

the

Warrant

of

last

publication

Maritime

Arrest

at

of
2,

such notice."
Case

RLP complied with the court's Order,
Virginian-Pilot

May 19, 2014,

newspaper

and

May 26, 2014;

hamptonroads.com>,
2:14cvl60,

filed

on

ECF No.

58.

timely claims

ECF No.

16;

Case

No.

2:14cvl60,

Case

No.

2:14cvl60,

CADG's

claim

2:14cvl60,

those

ECF No.

and

online

ECF

No.

84;

Notice,

CADG,

Case

No.

Collette Davidson
and

Milton

ECF No.

Mem.

Davidson,

T.

85.

Order

ECF No. 95. On August 8, 2014,

claims of Robol,

<http://legals.
Case

No.

four parties came forward and

2:14cvl60,

July 9, 2014.

4.

May 12, 2014,

at

dates.

court:

76;

Issue

ECF No.

2:14cvl60,

Robol and the Robol Law Office

Case No.

on

to

and published notice in The

same

this

2:14cvl60,

May 5, 2014,

In response,

with

Richard T.

("Butterworth"),

on

No.

Order

("Robol"),

("Davidson"),

Butterworth

Jr.

The court denied

at

7,

Case

No.

the court dismissed the

and Butterworth,

for failure to state

a claim under salvage law. Mem. Order at 2, ECF No. 114.6 The time

6 Robol, Davidson, and Butterworth each filed a separate notice of
appeal

as

to the court's Memorandum

Order of August 8, 2014,

dismissing their individual claims. See ECF Nos. 138, 146, & 148.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed Butterworth's appeal for failure to
prosecute

on

November 12,

February 25, 2015,
Fourth

Circuit

by

an

dismissed

2014.

See

Davidson's

court's Memorandum Order of August 8,

ECF Nos. 180 &

181.

Fourth

affirmed

Circuit

ECF

Nos.

unpublished per

Thereafter,
this

appeal
2014,

in a
court's

173

&

174.

curiam opinion,
and
as

affirmed

to Davidson.

published opinion,
Memorandum

Order

On

the
this
See

the
of

August 8, 2014, with respect to Robol, finding, among other
things, that "Robol had a preexisting duty to return files to his

to

file

additional

claims

against

the

in

rem

Defendant

has

expired. See Order to Issue Warrant of Maritime Arrest at 2.
In

the

instant

recovered

from

property,

and

the

Motion,

wreck

because

RLP

RLP

asserts

are

wholly

has

reduced

that

"[t]he

derelict
these

and

artifacts

abandoned

artifacts

to

its

possession,

it is entitled to ownership of the recovered items."

Mot.

(emphasis

at

3

added).

In

support,

RLP

cites

CADG

II,

claiming that "the Fourth Circuit ruled in 1992 that CADG may be
declared the finder and sole owner of any of those items that it

recovered." Mem.

Supp. Mot.

at 2 (emphasis added).7 RLP argues

former clients, notwithstanding the fact that the clients had not
paid him all of the legal fees to which he claimed entitlement,
and therefore that his action was not voluntary." Recovery Ltd.
P'ship v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel S.S. Cent. Am., No. 14-1950,
790 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. June 22, 2015). Robol filed a petition for

rehearing or rehearing en banc; however, no judge requested a
poll under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 on the petition
for

rehearing

Accordingly,
See ECF No.

or

rehearing

en

banc.

See

ECF

Nos. 188,

190.

the Fourth Circuit mandate issued on July 31, 2015.
191.

7 The court notes both that the Fourth Circuit's ruling was, in
fact, more narrow on this point, and that the Fourth Circuit was
considering the specific issue of "whether the district court
correctly found that the insured shipments of gold were abandoned

by the underwriters." CADG II, 974 F.2d at 465. Specifically, in
holding

"that

the lower court clearly erred when

it found an

abandonment and applied the law of finds" and in directing the
district court to apply the law of salvage to determine the
proper

salvage

award

for

CADG,

the

Fourth

Circuit

stated:

"Columbus-America may be declared the finder and sole owner, as
to any recovered parts of the ship, all passenger possessions,

and any cargo besides the insured shipments." Id. (emphasis
added). However, the Fourth Circuit made no ruling in this
regard, and was not addressing the issue of declaring CADG as the
finder and owner of the salvaged artifacts. This ruling by the

that
be

"all of

recovered by RLP,

abandoned,
be

the artifacts

and RLP,

awarded

title

and

as

to

that have been or may in the
reduced

the

them."

to

its

possession,

have

finder of abandoned property,
Id.

at

4.

RLP

further

future
been

should

asserts

that

its "intent to acquire title to the recovered artifacts has been
affirmatively pursued since

1989,

when the

first motion for an

award of title was granted." Id. at 7.
Robol,

Order of

whose

claim

this

August 8, 2014,

court

filed a

dismissed

Response

to

in

the

RLP's

Memorandum

Motion

for

Award of Title on September 7, 2014, arguing that "any award of

title

should

be

Claimants." Resp.

subject

at

September 15, 2 014,

1,

to

the

ECF No.

salvage

143.

RLP

award

requested

by

filed its Reply on

in which it states that "Robol has failed to

respond substantively in opposition to the motion for award of

title."

Reply at 3,

ECF No.

156.

No other party has filed a

responsive pleading to RLP's Motion for Title,

and the deadline

to respond to the Motion has expired.
II.

Analysis

A. The Law of Finds and the Law of Salvage

This Motion presents the threshold question of whether the

maritime law of salvage or the common law of finds should apply

Fourth Circuit was twenty-three years ago, prior to any renewed
salvage operations, which did not occur until 2014, and prior to
this court's ruling that RLP was the real-party-in-interest, not
CADG. See Mem. Op. & Order of July 9, 2014, ECF No. 92.

to the recovered artifacts.8 If the law of finds applies to the
Central America treasure,
Title.

However,

artifacts,

if

then

then RLP may maintain its Motion for

the law of

RLP

will

salvage applies

instead

need

to

to

move

the recovered
for

a

salvage

award.

The
those

the

incentives

associated

created by

with

the

law

nature and purpose of

the
of

law of

finds.

salvage law,

salvage

"In

differ

stark

from

contrast

to

which is an ancient and

time-honored part of the maritime jus gentium,

the law of finds

is a disfavored common-law doctrine incorporated into admiralty
but

only

Abandoned

rarely
Vessel,

I") . Whereas

aid,

applied."
435

salvage

R.M.S.

F.3d

law

521,

Titanic,
532

is based on

(4th

Inc.
Cir.

the

a short

active piracy and pillaging." Id. at 533. Thus,

"applied sparingly — only when no

interest would
Further,

the

be adversely affected by

application of

2006)

Wrecked

("Titanic

step

from

the law of finds

private or public

its application."

either doctrine

&

principle of mutual

"a free finders-keepers policy is but

should be

v.

is

also

Id.

influenced

by the rights granted to a salvor-in-possession and the rights
granted to a finder.

A

salvor-in-possession

enjoys

exclusive

access

to

a

shipwreck, with the concomitant right to exclude other would-be

8 RLP is seeking title to the thousands of artifacts that have
been recovered, "including many gold and silver coins, and other
historical artifacts." Mem. Supp. Mot. at 3.
8

treasure hunters.

A

finder,

however,

"cannot exclude others from

their attempts to obtain first possession of artifacts recovered
from an abandoned wreck."
promises

the

finder

Id. at 535. Although the law of finds

title

to

the

recovered property,

"'if

the

property is ultimately found not to have been abandoned the law
of

finds

permits

no

property that have
at

533

F. Supp.

stated

(emphasis
350,

that

356

"we

recover

the

been partly or completely successful.'"

Id.

(S.D.N.Y.

are

even

(quoting

added)

salvage-in-possession
supervision,

reward,

1981)).

unaware

status

of

to

for

efforts

Hener

United

Moreover,

any

a

v.

court

salvor

changed the salvor's role

to

to

States,

525

the Fourth Circuit

that

and,

has

after

that of

awarded

years

finder,

of

even

though we have recognized in the abstract the legal possibility
of this occurring under different circumstances." Id. at 534. In

sum,

"the salvage

law is much

better

suited to supervise

the

salvage of a historic wreck," due in part to the public interest
in what salvors can do with recovered artifacts and how treasure
hunters treat the wreck site.

However,

to

ancient

some courts

shipwrecks.

Id.

at 536.

have applied

See,

e.g.,

the

common law of

Treasure

Salvors,

Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel,

finds

Inc.

v.

569 F.2d 330,

337 (5th Cir. 1978) ("Disposition of a wrecked vessel whose very
location has been lost for centuries as though its owner were

still in existence stretches a fiction to absurd lengths."). In

a proceeding more
Circuit

even

than two decades ago

found

that

Columbus-America may be

"an

in CADG II,

abandonment

may

be

the Fourth
found,

and

declared the finder and sole owner,

to any recovered parts of

the ship,

as

all passenger possessions,

and any cargo besides the insured shipments." 974 F.2d at 465.9
In order for the law of finds to be applied to property lost
at

sea,

"the

treasure-hunter must

establish

property by clear and convincing evidence."
v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel,
2004)

("Titanic II")

323 F. Supp.

'abandonment'

R.M.S.

of

Titanic,

2d 724,

735

435 F.3d 521

to prove such abandonment is high.

(4th Cir.

Inc.

(E.D. Va.

(citing CADG II, 974 F.2d at 464-65),

in part on other grounds,

the

rev'd

2006) . The bar

See CADG II, 974 F.2d at 464.

An owner's express declaration abandoning title would constitute

abandonment,
insufficient.

Marble,

id.,

but

Wiggins

mere
v.

186 F. Supp. 452,

"lapse

1100

456

Tons,

of

time

More

(E.D. Va.

or

1960)

and

nonusef]"

Less,

of

(noting,

is

Italian

however,

that lapse of time and nonuse "may, under certain circumstances,
give rise to an implication of intention to abandon") . If "items

are recovered from ancient shipwrecks and no owner appears in
court

to

claim

them,"

an

inference

of

abandonment

is

allowed.

CADG II, 974 F.2d at 461; see also Titanic I, 435 F.3d at 532.

However,

the Fourth Circuit more recently has affirmed the

application of salvage law to historic shipwrecks. See Titanic I,

9 See supra note 7
10

435

F.3d at

538.

explicitly the

In Titanic I,

the

appropriateness

to historic wrecks

such as

of

Fourth Circuit

"recognize [d]

applying maritime

the Titanic."

Id.

at

524.

salvage

law

The wreck of

the Central America is certainly a "historic wreck,"

considering

the substantial loss of life and property and the storied history
of

the

shipwreck.

See CADG II,

974

sinking of the Central America as

American

maritime

history");

F.2d at

4 55

"one of the worst disasters in

CADG

I,

742

(recounting a contemporary newspaper report
the Central America was
considered,

the

(describing the

richest ship,

F. Supp.
that

at

1329

"recorded that

passengers and

cargo

that was ever engulfed in the waves of the sea, when

her rich freight of gold was lost").

A

finder

property

found

acquires
has

ownership

never

been

over

owned

a

by

"find"
a

because

person,

the

whereas

salvor acquires possession over salvaged property in order

a

to

save it from destruction. According to the Fourth Circuit:

Historically, courts have applied the maritime
law of salvage when ships or their cargo have been
recovered from the bottom of the sea by those other
than their owners. Under this law, the original owners
still
retain
their
ownership
interests
in
such
property, although the salvors are entitled to a very
liberal salvage award. Such awards often exceed the
value of the services rendered,

come

forward

to

claim

the

and if no owner should

property,

the

salvor

is

normally awarded its total value.

CADG II, 974 F.2d at 459. Regarding the common law of finds,
Fourth Circuit continues:

11

the

A related legal doctrine is the common law of
finds,
which expresses "the ancient and honorable
principle of 'finders, keepers.'" Martha's Vineyard
Scuba Headquarters, Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked &
Abandoned Steam Vessel, 833 F.2d 1059, 1065 (1st Cir.
1987). Traditionally,
the law of finds was applied

only to maritime property which had never been owned
by anybody, such as ambergris, whales, and fish.
Id.

at 459-60.

Further,

salvage

law,

the

the

Fourth

salvor

Circuit

receives

has

a

recognized

lien

in

the

that

"under

property,

not

title to the property, and as long as the case remains a salvage
case, the lienholder cannot assert a right to title even though
he may end up with title following execution or foreclosure of
the

lien."

R.M.S.

Titanic,

286 F.3d 194, 204-05

Inc.

(4th Cir.

v.

Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel,

2002)

("Titanic III")

(refusing

to apply the common law of finds to the salvor-in-possession of
the Titanic wreck).

B.

Application

of

Common Law of Finds,

This

court

will

apply the maritime

the

Maritime

Law

of

Salvage,

Not

the

to the Recovered Artifacts

follow

law of

the

Fourth

Circuit's

direction

salvage to the wreck of

and

the Central

America. See Titanic I, 435 F.3d at 532.

To grant

RLP's Motion for Title would change RLP's

status

from that of salvor-in-possession to that of finder, which action

would "open the way to justified claims of unfairness by other
would-be

finders

who are

excluded from

the

wreck

site."

Id.

at

533. This court will not permit RLP to enjoy its right to exclude
12

others
title

from
to

the

the

salvage

site

while

recovered artifacts.

the current salvor-in-possession,

artifacts

it has

Were

simultaneously
this

court

moving

for

to allow RLP,

to enjoy immediate title to the

recovered since early 2014,10

then the court

would risk an "unsupervised rush to the site to recover anything
that

could

be

grabbed."

Id.

The

shipwrecks would be diminished,
sunken treasure were

attempts

from

artifacts

their

recovered

from

an

interest

in

historic

if such an "unsupervised rush" to

to result.

others

public

Since

to

"[a]

obtain

abandoned

finder cannot

first

exclude

possession

wreck,"

id.

at

of
535,

likewise, RLP cannot be both a salvor-in-possession and a finder.
In addition,

RLP

fails

salvage-in-possession
supervision,

to mention

status

to

a

"any court

salvor

and,

that

has

after

awarded

years

of

changed the salvor's role to that of finder." Id. at

534.

10 As previously indicated, RLP was granted salvor-in-possession
status by this court by Memorandum Opinion and Order of
July 9, 2014. See ECF No. 92. RLP actively engaged in the salvage
of the Central America in 2014. See supra note 5 and accompanying
text regarding the inventory logs of the salvaged artifacts and
the salvage status reports for 2014. The court does note,
however, that salvage operations were suspended in late 2014 for
the winter months and apparently have not restarted, as no
required reports of any salvage operations by RLP have been made
to the court since January 23, 2015. See Report to Court, ECF
No. 176 (2014 End of Year Report) ; see also supra note 5 and
accompanying text; Order of May 9, 2014, at 2-3, ECF No. 41 ("RLP

is DIRECTED to file with the court regular monthly reports on the
current salvage operations . . . .")
13

(bold in original).

Moreover,
claims

of

this

Robol,

court

granted

Butterworth,

RLP's

and

Motion

Davidson,

to

based

Dismiss
in

the

part

on

RLP's assertion that "none of them constitutes a claim cognizable

in

admiralty

under

this

Court's

in

rem

jurisdiction."

Mot.

Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 98.1X In filing the Motion to Dismiss, RLP
specifically

(emphasis

stated

added).

allow the salvor,
years,
under

proper

that

"[t]his

Similarly,

in

is

a

salvage

Titanic

II,

case."

this

Id.

court

at

3

did not

who enjoyed salvor-in-possession status for ten

to argue that it should be awarded title to the artifacts
the

law of

course

of

finds.

323

action was

F. Supp. 2d at

to

pursue

a

734-35.

salvage

Rather,

award.

the

Id.

at

741.12 Although RLP asserts that its "intent to acquire title to
the

recovered

1989,"

Mem.

artifacts

Supp.

Mot.

has
at

7,

been

affirmatively

RLP and its

agent

pursued

since

CADG have

long

enjoyed their status as the exclusive salvor-in-possession of the

Central America wreck, and it would be inappropriate at this time
to reclassify RLP as a "finder."

11

The Fourth Circuit has affirmed this court's dismissal of

these claims. See supra note 6; see also supra note 4.

12 For example,
court

found,

in the R.M.S. Titanic litigation,

and

the

Fourth

Circuit

affirmed,

the district

that

the

law of

salvage, and not the law of finds, governed the case. See Titanic
I, 435 F.3d at 533-35. Accordingly, the salvor-in-possession of
the R.M.S. Titanic filed a motion for a salvage award. R.M.S.

Tetanic, Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 742 F. Supp. 2d 784,
808

(E.D. Va.

2010)

("Titanic IV"). See infra Part III.
14

Thus,
case,

the court declines to apply the law of finds to this

because RLP

exclusive

currently and

salvor-in-possession,

has "explicitly acknowledge[d]
historic

wrecks."

Titanic

actively enjoys
and because

the

the

status

of

Fourth Circuit

the application of salvage law to

I,

435

F.3d

the exclusive salvor-in-possession of

at

the

538.

RLP's

status

as

Central America wreck

effectively precludes an application of the law of finds to the
recovered artifacts. See Titanic II, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 734-35.
III.

Conclusion

To apply the law of salvage does not mean that RLP will not

be fairly and justly rewarded for the time and resources it has

invested in its recovery efforts. Even under salvage law,
owner should come

forward to claim the property,

normally awarded its

total value."

the Titanic litigation,

CADG II,

974

"if no

the salvor is

F.2d at 459.

In

the salvor-in-possession was eventually

awarded a salvage award of one hundred percent

(100%)

the fair

market value of the recovered artifacts, in part because of the
salvor-in-possession's
dedication,

both

in

"unprecedented
the

salvage

conservation and exhibition."

Abandoned

Vessel,

("Titanic

IV").

742

The

R.M.S.

F. Supp. 2d

Titanic

of

feats
the

skill

artifacts

Titanic,

784,

of

808

Inc.

and

and
their

v. Wrecked &

(E.D.

Va.

2010)

salvor-in-possession

was

later

granted title to the artifacts because the amount of the salvage
award could be satisfied only by conveying title. R.M.S. Titanic,
15

Inc.

v.

Wrecked

(E.D. Va.

2011)

&

Abandoned

Vessel,

("Titanic V").

804

the

recovered

artifacts.
efforts

Central America.

and

also CADG IV,

509

CADG,

in locating the

as well as the salvaging and the preservation of

("[S] ubstantial

Scientific

508,

This court has previously remarked

upon the efforts invested by RLP's agent,
Central America,

F. Supp. 2d

See

were

CADG
made

I,

to

742

F. Supp.

locate

the

at

wreck

1329

of

the

Such efforts were expensive and time consuming.

historical
56

F.3d at

research
571

required

many

("[I]t is apparent

hours.");

see

that Columbus-

America's effort was monumental.").

RLP is, therefore, ADVISED that it may move this court for a

salvage award under maritime law. RLP is further advised that any

motion

for a salvage award

factors:

should address

the following

seven

(1) the labor expended by the salvors in rendering the

salvage service; (2) the promptitude, skill, and energy displayed
in rendering the service and saving the property; (3)

the value

of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service,

and the danger to which such property was exposed;

incurred

by

the

impending peril;

salvors
(5)

in

securing

the

(4)

property

the value of the property saved;

the risk

from

the

(6)

the

degree of danger from which the property was rescued; and (7) the
degree to which the salvors have worked to protect the historical
and archeological value of

II,

the wreck and the items salved.

974 F.2d at 468; Titanic IV,
16

CADG

742 F. Supp. 2d at 794-95. The

first

six

factors

Supreme Court
award

for

(1869),

as

have

the

salvage,

been

described

"main ingredients"

The

Blackwall,

77

by

the

to use

U.S.

United

States

when fixing an

(10 Wall)

1,

13-14

and the seventh factor was added by the Fourth Circuit in

CADG II,

974 F.2d at 468.

Since
salvage,

the

not

America wreck,

court

the

determines

common

RLP's

law

of

that

the

finds,

Motion is DENIED.

admiralty

applies
The

to

the

IS

SO ORDERED.

Uj>VftA(0';$gft^S^
REBECCA BEACH
CHIEF JUDGE

10.

August \U , 2015

17

SMITH

of

Central

Clerk is DIRECTED

forward a copy of this Opinion to counsel for RLP.
IT

law

to