74' Sunseeker 'arrested' at the end of the Fort Lauderdale Boat Show

Bajansailor

Bajansailor

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2004
Messages
6,595
Location
Marine Surveyor in Barbados
Visit site
I receive a daily email from the Passagemaker folk, and this was their feature article today -

https://www.passagemaker.com/trawler-news/feds-arrest-yacht-lauderdale

Here are the first two paragraphs - there is a lot more in the article after these.

A 74-foot Sunseeker yacht was placed under “arrest” at the conclusion of the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. Four parties are in court, battling over the $4 million yacht, so U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga signed an order that allowed U.S. Marshalls to move the boat to an undisclosed location while the trial continues.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, the 740 Sport Yacht is part of a lawsuit filed by Kevin Turner, who paid $3.8 million to have it built. Turner is suing Sunseeker International in the U.K., Sunseeker USA and Rick Obey & Associates. Turner’s lawsuit, filed in May, says Sunseeker is refusing to credit him with the $4 million he paid Obey to have the boat built.
 
So the dealer falls out with the manufacturer due to an engine failure and stops making stage payments for the boats under construction.
Manufacturer loses the plot and and sells the territory to another dealer, then refuses to release the boat, despite the old dealer claiming to have the funds.
Old dealer website now comes up with a "404" not found error, which suggests they have gone bust in some shape or form.
What a nightmare ... the lawyers are going to be able to buy themselves bigger boats after this one :(

Some more detail here:

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/sun-sentinel-broward-edition/20190727/281844350237668


.
 
Last edited:
The last post on the dealer's Facebook page was on the 30th August.
https://www.facebook.com/rickobeyandassociates/

This is the oldest article that Google found, going back to the 29th July -
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/busine...0190729-eiznpsdxdzfu7pmvvkjlqxp3mu-story.html

Edit - Ooops, sorry Flower Power, I just cottoned on that your link to the Sun Sentinel article is two days earlier.

Another article -
https://yachtharbour.com/news/sunse...lion-dispute-between-shipyard-and-broker-3535
In it they mention that "Obey admit that Turner has become an innocent hostage to the situation, and are trying to help him get his boat."
But how are they helping him to get his boat if they have gone bust?

The Sun Sentinel are still following this story as well - here is their latest on the 5th November.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/busine...0191105-jkgrbhsovjc3tn7mmksb4it3fa-story.html
The article ends with this quote -
“Kevin’s in a spot," Obey said. "He’s actually my friend, but unfortunately he has to sue me because I sold him the boat. He’s a great guy. He doesn’t deserve this.”

I feel rather sorry for poor Mr Turner - he certainly does seem to be between the proverbial rock and a hard place. :(
JFM, do you have any preliminary thoughts on this saga?

Edit - here is another doozy - going back to 2012.
Maybe this is why Obey is on his own now, after he had a punch up with Mr Biggie (yes, that really is his name). Scroll down to comment #6.
https://www.browardbeat.com/three-judges-face-re-election-where-is-the-outrage/

An excerpt :
"Atlantic Yacht and Ship et.al. is one of the largest yacht companies in South Florida probably has revenues in the millions of dollars. February of this year there was an alleged altercation between Partner Biggie and Partner Obey which led to Biggie filing for a Temporary Restraining Order against Partner Obey."
 
Last edited:
The joy of stage payments and title.

The key challenge ( and I have no idea about this broker ) is they are usually a post box with little financial standing other than a rented marina office.

I had a factory agreement to pass title to me directly ( not the dealer ) on each payment. I will be honest if it were Sunseeker who I consider financially stable I would not have done this.

So this poor chap has paid a broker probably with few assets. They have ( apparently ) paid Sunseeker but that money then seems lost in a general payment mess where Sunseeker seems to have offset this with other transactions and won’t release the boat.

They Devil is in the detail but Sunseeker did apparently ship it and nothing leaves a boat factory without it being paid for !

I would think the Sunseeker reputation damage here could be vast regardless of the fine print detail of who is right and who is wrong
 
jrudge said:
Sunseeker who I consider financially stable
Click to expand...
"financially stable" associated to a boatbuilder: if at Oxford dictionary they are looking for a good example of what oxymoron means, that's bound to be one of the best. :D

PS: with apologies to Vitelli, possibly the only exception that proves the rule...
 
I agree all things are relative.

I was buying from fairline. In that case the dealer had a better balance sheet than the builder ! Fairline failed ( twice depending on how you view the transfer to the bloke who owned fletcher ) about 9 months later
 
I am reading it that the customer paid the broker/dealership to pay to have a boat built. That broker/dealership then decided not to pay the builder based on other issues and as such they refused to deliver the boat they hadn't been paid for.

The only issue I see here is with the broker not paying the builder after having taken the customers money for said boat.

Where is the money? If the broker still had it he could return to the customer and just say screw you to the builder you have a boat you need to be trying to sell. I don't know what the legal logistics of that is but we're not talking about a few $100k for a yacht this is 4 million dollars!

But this is the US so th only winners will be the lawyers.

W.
 
PilotWolf said:
I am reading it that the customer paid the broker/dealership to pay to have a boat built. That broker/dealership then decided not to pay the builder based on other issues and as such they refused to deliver the boat they hadn't been paid for.

W.
Click to expand...

If the broker didn't pay the manufacturer and the manufacturer therefore refused to deliver the boat, how is it in America under arrest rather than sat outside the factory in Poole?

Probably the only people who really know what the actual situation is are those involved.
 
There was comment in one of the articles along the lines of " Sunseeker has had more than enough to pay for the boat". Now this statement maybe false , but if not then to me it suggested that the boat was paid for, shipped and then SS decided to make some form of offset against other debts pre delivery. It would be interesting to know when title passed - I assumed when it was paid for and then we are back to the "fact" ( which was certainly true in my case) that the boat wont leave the factory until paid for.

That of course is why courts exist.
 
Feels to me the broker has seen an easy way out by busting himself, after realising there would be no way back , recovering the busted engines on the earlier sale .
So he’s been naughty playing with clients $ ( withholding part payments ) while orchestrating his pathway out .

Scrolling back re busted engines , I very much doubt that lies on S/Skrs Mat or the manufacturer.
On big boats they float , finish and trial them for 3 months before a final lift and antifoul / prep for hand over .
Sort of check for weeps n seeps and fit extras - run cables you know stuff like B+O kit etc .
The boats don’t get the ceilings and cabin soles fitted until the very end ......so they are in the water for 3/12 without .
Engines / machinery all put through paces and the Y 74 is a popular seller .

So the engines catastrophes would have been at the broker end .
We need more details of how the broker was left high n dry ( no pun intended :)) with this liability.

If it was a factory issue or en manufacturer issues I,am sure both would have stud up to the plate , they didn’t .
Also interesting the broker has not (despite repeated requests from S/Skr ) presented any audited accounts .of clients $$ movements ......so broker is hiding something?


The moral of the story is either buy a ready made used boat hopefully with sufficient discount on list to give you headroom for final personalisation.Or strike lucky with the exact spec , or be not too fussy roll with what’s for sale .

Or if you insist on new ......get large with a marine lawyer .......along the lines of dealing direct with the builder and keeping title all the way throughout the build to completion .
If it’s a really large amount ( let’s add a nought ) to $40 M hire a surveyor to act in your interest during the build .@ $4 M I would probably do that too .
Wouldn’t want leaky decks , popping hull window seals , low exhaust manifolds and the rest .......we continually read about on here with a new boat .
 
Last edited:
Re JRudge's comment -
"They Devil is in the detail but Sunseeker did apparently ship it and nothing leaves a boat factory without it being paid for !"

Could it be that Sunseeker shipped the boat out to the 'new' dealer who exhibited her at the Boat Show in Fort Lauderdale? If so, then this seems to be a guaranteed way to wind up Messrs Turner and Obey big time.
Obey says that Turner is a 'good friend' - I wonder if they still are?
 
jrudge said:
There was comment in one of the articles along the lines of " Sunseeker has had more than enough to pay for the boat". Now this statement maybe false , but if not then to me it suggested that the boat was paid for, shipped and then SS decided to make some form of offset against other debts pre delivery. It would be interesting to know when title passed - I assumed when it was paid for and then we are back to the "fact" ( which was certainly true in my case) that the boat wont leave the factory until paid for.

That of course is why courts exist.
Click to expand...

Stock boat @ this show .
Temporarily S/Sker dealing direct ( or with trusted intermediate) until the melee of he busted broker dust settled .

Courts captured the boat until ...........
 
Interestingly
HIN ( hull identification number )
As we know it’s just a riveted plate on the stern.
So I wonder why S/Sker did not change that before it leaving the factory ?
Presume the broker and Mr Turner have knowledge of this number in there co respondences before the bust up with S/Sker .
Just seems odd to me ( wearing my chess hat ) for S/Sker not to have predicted a strong legal challenge in the USA culminating with officialdom sniffing round a Y74 @ a show .

Somebody’s been sleeping at S/Sker

Or would the court ( very much doubt at this stage ) nab anything with value owned by S/Skr ?
No .
I suspect Mr Turner wants that boat , and the numbers match before proceedings issued for it be be ceased.

Pity the HIN numbers did not prevent that from S/Skrs pov .
 
Last edited:
ari said:
If the broker didn't pay the manufacturer and the manufacturer therefore refused to deliver the boat, how is it in America under arrest rather than sat outside the factory in Poole?

Probably the only people who really know what the actual situation is are those involved.
Click to expand...

I have no idea! Again someone must know where the money is...

Maybe it was just a show boat by te builder?

W.
 
PilotWolf said:
But this is the US so th only winners will be the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

Some years ago, I heard straight from the horse's mouth of a builder sued by one of their clients in the US for something (no idea what exactly) related to the build of a new boat.
The thing is, while the legal cause was under way, this chap bought another boat, from the very same builder.
Now, if you are wondering whether it was more silly the client who signed another contract or the builder who accepted it, hang on, that's nothing.
Believe it or not, the same happened with the second boat, and this persevering chap ordered a third one.

Shortly afterwards, my involvement with that builder came to an end, so I have no idea of how the story ended.
For all I know, by now they could as well be dealing with the 10th legal claim, in parallel with the 11th new build... :rolleyes:
But back in those days, I was dealing with another IT client who was speccing a new boat which he bought from the same builder.
And I used to think that he was very fastidious, but this story had put his requests in perspective, so to speak....! :ambivalence:
 
jrudge said:
HIN is cast into the GRP and then placed in several places in the boat.
Click to expand...
That isn't the only way to skin that cat, J - some builders only rivet a steel plate on the stern, as PF said. I don't think the regulation on this matter is very strict, in fact.
As an example, also the last but two & three digits, which are supposed to indicate the month/year when the build started (i.e., the keel construction on either wooden or steel/alu boats, or the hull mould on plastic boats), are actually used in very different ways, depending on the builder.
 
MapisM, for some reason your story above reminded me of our friend Gludy - remember him?
He initially commissioned a new Trader motor yacht, followed by a Marlow (or was it the other way around?) - with each build he came on here complaining profusely, and apparent intent of vengeance against the Builder.
And then he did it again, with a St Francis sailing catamaran, which again became a long running saga.
 
Yeah, I can see why "my" story reminded you of Gludy.
But at least he went somewhere else, after going legal with each builder.
What I find emblematic in my story is that going legal over the Pond is obviously considered business as usual.
To the point that people keep dealing with someone as if nothing happened, while their respective lawyers take care of sorting the controversy.
Only in America...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top