If you put a house "on" a piece of ground that you lease, and the lease is up, then the house reverts to the owner of the land (i.e., they own it, you a squatter thereafter -- not a tenant, with certain contractual rights), etc.

If you had one of these floating "trailers", then you'd either get your property out of there, or your "lease" wouldn't be slip license agreement, it would look like something else.

The marina can sort this out now, but they viewed the contractual arrangement as a Maritime Law issue. I believe that Court said that they used the wrong "vehicle" [ ;^)) pun intended]. If my memor serves me. The demolished the guys "raft trailer".

Now before you say, old poor me -- as I understand it, he viewed it as his right to stay in the marina and not have to move. He elected not to relocate and sue them. He said, in effect, it's my right to be on your property -- you can't remove me. The local and lower courts in ruled for the City. The Supreme Court just was saying: You used the wrong reasoning, therefore the logic you invoked to arrive at that solution was flawed. He may have the right to sue them, but I'm not sure he'll get ANY of his costs of litigation back under the "American System". So I'm not sure what he won, in purely an economic sense.