WPCc |hKZH`LQ|ܭp޾FϹ"&~e)6XNR$]q>.qZJ0b{4׋apSLJ!IsanL _|2@qzhet+Ǐ8A&l8*Bs=HV8ud z@eͽP-SحR+ج]>d "iUy_zB |F׋hR1 zHD"Jf1TF'g ?.g_uh-!űG]9x:ҐL 3I>wjuP+z-ͪ  MK[^Uk҉9NgY-Hwn}([Mr)&O8Wy KtI~‹akdEe^d, BŅt#X % 0 D 0Gc U: 0 U*8 nT NU UNW ^ w 4   m E f a N  1  72 1u 729 0ck 1 72U 0U 0 0 0 0| 0V 0- 0 0 0C 0 B 0 0 0j 02 0 0 0x 0@2 0r 0@ 0 0 0! 0Z" 0# 0#^$U6$ 00 % 0<P% 0% 0>J& 0v& 0`& 0`^' 0`' 0`( 0`~( 08( 0) 02) 0* 0:+ 0YP+ 0_+ 0 , 0j- 0|. B*0 D/*0 D+Y0 00 D/2 072 063 0;3 0:C4 0^}4 0<4U>5U*U5U >5UB5b566UF888 l;y<<QAgD|HpKG MSS4X0[0[0[0[8[8[8[C=_HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($X:XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XTXXX    =TXXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular.s Y.r:i+003|x"UTABLE A(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2   d*AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK9<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K9<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K9<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7O(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7P(X7&  d dN)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7R(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7P(X7N)2dxd0KS.SampleK9<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK9<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -     . ' Turner0Turner .   <4 9Z+.Courier New Regular ~ $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    1    _ChambersandFareseeachloanedmoneytoDavidandAngela  MurphyandtoseveraltruckingcompaniesownedbyDavidMurphy.  AftertheMurphysandtheotherentitiesdefaultedonthetwo \ loans,onNovember1,1996,Fareseobtainedamoneyjudgmentof 2 $27,612.00,andonApril22,1998,Chambersobtainedamoney X judgmentof$70,123.32.  $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    2    _TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledonSeptember1,1998.  $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    4    _`XDXXXDWhilethefirstclauseof1333(1)grantstothedistrict  courtoriginalsubjectmatterjurisdictionoveradmiraltyand  maritimecases,the"savingclause"reservestherightofacommon \ lawremedytobebroughtinstatecourtoronthelawsideofthe 2 federaldistrictcourt.Thus,wherethereisaremedyavailable X bothinadmiraltyandatcommonlaw,aclaimantmay(1)proceedin . admiraltyinafederaldistrictcourtor(2)commenceacommonlaw    action,eitherinstatecourtorinafederaldistrictcourtunder  diversity.#XDXX`XD#`XDXXXD14AC.Wright,A.Miller,&E.Cooper,FederalPractice  andProcedure3672,at30310(3ded.1998)(collectingcases).#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXD 2 $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    7    _AsinstructedbytheHouseReporttothe1998Acttowhich  subsection31321(a)(1)wasapart,"theliterallanguageofthe  statuteshouldcontrolthedispositionofthecases.Thereisno \ mandateinlogicorincaselawforrelianceonlegislativehistory 2 toreacharesultcontrarytotheplainmeaningofthestatute, X particularlywherethatplainmeaningisinnowayunreasonable." . H.R.Rep.No.100-918,at16(1988),reprintedin1988U.S.C.C.A.N.   6104,6109. ] $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    8    _TherecordingstatutetracesitsrootsbacktotheVessel  SalesandMortgageRecordingActofJuly29,1850,ch.27,1,9  Stat.440.TheActof1850waspassed,inpart,toestablisha \ federalclearinghouseofrecordedinstrumentsaffectingtitleto 2 federallydocumentedvesselssothatthirdpartieshadoneplaceto X looktoforreliableinformationastowhatclaims,liens,orother . encumbrancesexistagainstthevessel.White'sBankv.Smith,74   U.S.(7Wall.)646,651(1868).Therecordingstatutewas   reenactedin1920,ShipMortgageActof1920,ch.250,30,41 `  Stat.1000,andagainin1988,Pub.L.No.100-710,102Stat.4741, 6   virtuallyunchangedfromitsoriginalform. r $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    9    _Werecognizethatinmanyinstances,recordingstatuteslike  thisoneprovetobeaharshrealityforpurchaserslikethe  Mullanes,butthe_Mullanes_Ԁhadameanstoprotecttheirinterests: \ theycouldhavefiledtheirbillofsalewiththeSecretary 2 pursuanttosubsection31321(1)(1).Thistheyfailedtodo.  $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    10    _ChambersandFareseraiseothersundryargumentsand  challenges.Wehaveconsideredthemandfindthattheyarewithout  meritandnotdeservingdiscussion. = $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    11    _Rule4(a)(7)wasamendedin2000`XDXXXDtoread,       (A)Ajudgmentororderisenteredfor  purposesofthisRule4(a):  (i)ifFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 2 58(a)(1)doesnotrequireaseparatedocument, X whenthejudgmentororderisenteredinthe . civildocketunderFederalRuleofCivil   Procedure79(a);or   (ii)ifFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 6   58(a)(1)requiresaseparatedocument,when  \  thejudgmentororderisenteredinthecivil  2  docketunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure   79(a)andwhentheearlieroftheseevents   occurs: d  thejudgmentororderissetforthona `  separatedocument,or 6 150dayshaverunfromentryofthejudgment  ororderinthecivildocketunderFederal h RuleofCivilProcedure79(a).#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXD >   TheamendmentsbecameeffectiveDecember1,2002andthushaveno : bearingonthisappeal.  $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    3    _Intheirappellatebrief,theMullanesclaimedtoappealthe  districtcourt'srulingsinfavoroftheSheriff'sDepartment,  includingitsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandtobarclaims.It \ appearsthatwelackjurisdictiontoreviewthisclaim,asthe 2 MullanesfailedtofileatimelynoticeofappealtheMullanes X filedtheirnoticeofappealonAugust16,2002,seventyonedays . afterthejudgmentbecamefinalonJune6,2002.Fed.R.App.P.   4(a)(1)(providingthatthenoticeofappealmustbefiledwithin   30daysafterthejudgmentisentered).Weneednotdecidethis `  issuesince,atoralargument,theMullanes'counselmadeclear 6   thattheywerenotpursuinganyclaimsagainstCousinsorthe  \  Department,butratherwereappealingonlythedistrictcourt's  2  awardofattorneys'fees.  $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    12    _Rule58wasamendedin2002toread,inrelevantpart,"`XDXXXDEvery  judgmentandamendedjudgmentmustbesetforthonaseparate  document,butaseparatedocumentisnotrequiredforanorder \ disposingofamotion:...(C)forattorneyfeesunderRule54." 2 #XDXX`XD#[XDXXXDThe2000amendmentsbecameeffectiveDecember1,2002andthusare X notrelevanttoourdecision.   $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    5    _`XDXXXDAtoralargument,theMullanesarguedthatChambersand  Faresewerebarredfromenforcingtheirstatecourtjudgmentsby  levyofexecutionandinsteadwererequiredtofileaninrem \ actioninadmiralty.Thisisnotthelaw.Astatecourtcan 2 enforceitsjudgmentbylevyonavesselownedbythejudgment X debtorunderthe"savingtosuitors"clause.Roundsv.Cloverport . Foundry&Mach.Co.,237U.S.303(1915);Friedell,supra,125,   at817;G.Gilmore&C.L.Black,Jr.,TheLawofAdmiralty38(2d   ed.1975).#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXD 9 $XDXXX  =DXXdd=    6    _Mass.Gen.Lawsch.223,44providesinfull:    Noshiporvesselshallbeattachedinacivil \ actionunlesstheplaintifforapersononhis 2 behalfmakesaffidavitandprovestothe X satisfactionofajusticeofacourtthathe . hasagoodclaimandreasonableexpectationof   recoveringanamount,exclusiveofallcosts,   equalatleasttoone-thirdoftheamountof `  damagesclaimed,whichaffidavitshallbe 6   annexedtothewritofattachment,andthe  \  certificateofthejusticethatheis  2  satisfiedthatthesameistrueshallbe   annexedtothewritofattachmentorendorsed   thereon. !XDXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X!XXXD .X X!     ^PUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals Gc .  FortheFirstCircuit X GcXDXX  A') ` dE< ` A   No.021791 K     `     h      p @  DAVIDE.MULLANE;JOANLESLIEMULLANE,  G     `     h   @ Plaintiffs,Appellees/CrossAppellants,   @tt)v. O  @\ \ ADELECHAMBERS;JEANFARESE, K  @ Defendants,Appellants/CrossAppellees,    A') ` dE<R` A S   FRANKCOUSINS,SHERIFF,ESSEXCOUNTYSHERIFF'SDEPARTMENT; 8 M/YCENT'ANNI,(O.N.967917)HERENGINES,TACKLE, ^ EQUIPMENTANDFURNISHINGS,INREM. 4 Defendants.    A') ` dE<` A b No.022043 !q   DAVIDE.MULLANE;JOANLESLIEMULLANE,  Plaintiffs,Appellants, y! V. %!u# ADELECHAMBERS;JEANFARESE;FRANKCOUSINS,SHERIFF,ESSEX "!% COUNTYSHERIFF'SDEPARTMENT;M/YCENT'ANNI,(O.N.967917) #& HERENGINES,TACKLE,EQUIPMENTANDFURNISHINGS,INREM. }$' Defendants,Appellees. )&y!) A') ` dE<'` A '%#+ @@` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ( $- @@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS f*%/ @@ [Hon.RobertE.Keeton,U.S.DistrictJudge] ,b'1 A') ` dE<-` A -)3  -)4?L ^P ^  ^  @@'Before  @@Lynch,CircuitJudge, \ Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge, 2 andStahl,SeniorCircuitJudge. X A') ` dE< ` A         PaulL.Kenny,withwhomSalimRodriguezTabitandBroadhurst, o   Lakin&Lakin,wereonbriefforappellants. E     ThomasE.Clinton,withwhomRobertE.CollinsandClinton&  k  Muzyka,P.C.,wereonbriefforappelleeMullane.  A    RobertCiampitti,Jr.,withwhomLawOfficesofRobert   Ciampitti,Jr.,P.C.,wasonbriefforappelleeSheriff's   Department. s  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   ~  SI/ t@37798t@SJune27,2003 U  RHC+" t@37798 t@ R(/  (  * !   c   8\D\XXdXXd8]*,X` XX* ` STAHL,SeniorCircuitJudge .Thiscaserequiresusto  determinewhetheranunrecordedbillofsalepurportingtoconvey x afederallydocumentedyacht,theM/YCent'Anni,isvalidas $t againstajudgmentcreditorandtoreviewanawardof$100,000.00   inpunitivedamagesandanassessmentof$43,720.44inattorneys' |  fees.Wereverseandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistent ( x  withthisopinion. $     I     ` OnNovember24,1997,`XDXXXDDr.JohnJ.Walsh,Jr.andBeatrice H  M.Walsh#XDXX`XD5#[XDXXXDԀconveyedthevessel,the#XDXX[XDķ#`XDXXXDM/YLadyB.,#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXDԀtoDavidandAngela D Murphy,who,onDecember8,1997,documentedtheconveyancewith  #XDXX[XDa#`XDXXXDtheDepartmentofTransportation("DOT")#XDXX`XD!#[XDXXXDԀpursuanttotheUnited L StatesVesselDocumentationSystem,46U.S.C.1210112124and H 31321(2002),andchangedthe#XDXX[XDċ#`XDXXXDvessel'snameto"LadyBGone."#XDXX`XDx#On  July2,1998,Dr.DavidMullane,plaintiffappellee/cross P appellant,purchasedthevesselfromtheMurphysbutfailedto L recordthebillofsaleorconveyancewiththeDOTuntilSeptember   2,1998. T!"  ` Inthemeantime,AdeleChambersandJeanFarese, #P$ defendantsappellants/crossappellees,soughttolevyonthevessel $& tosatisfytwoMassachusettsstatecourtwritsofexecutionthey X&!(  heldagainsttheMurphys,whomtheybelievedtostillownthe (T#* vessel.a #  1      ׀OnAugust28,1998,theEssexCountySheriff'sDepartment   ("Sheriff'sDepartment"),defendantappellee,withthetwo \ executionsinhand,seizedthevessel,whichatthispointhadthe X nameCent'Annipaintedonit,attheSeaportMarinainLynn,   Massachusetts.TheMurphyswereonthevesselatthetimeofthe `  seizure.WhenaskedbytheSheriff'sDepartmentwhethertheyowned  \  thevessel,theMurphysrespondedthattheyhadconveyedthevessel   backtothepreviousowners,i.e.,theWalshes.TheMullaneswere d  nevermentioned. `   ` TheSheriff'sDepartmentwasaccompaniedbyamemberof   theUnitedStatesCoastGuard,whoverifiedthattheDOTrecords h showedthatAngelaandDavidMurphyweretheregisteredowners.As d wenoted,theJuly1998conveyancetotheMullanes(andthechange  inthevessel'snamefromLadyB.GonetoCent'Anni)wasnot l recordedwiththeDOTuntilSeptember2,1998fivedaysafterthe h seizure.   ` OnSeptember4,1998,theMullanesfiledanamended p  complaintc #  2      ׀inadmiraltyagainstChambers,Farese,SheriffFrank !l" Cousins,theSheriff'sDepartment,andtheCent'Anniseeking "$ repossessionofthevesselandcompensatorydamagesforharmtothe  vesselallegedlysustainedasaresultoftheseizure.Pursuantto \ RulesDandE,theMullanesalsofiledanemergencymotionfor X immediatearrestofthevesselandamotiontoappointsubstitute   custodian,whichthecourtallowed.TheUnitedStatesMarshals `  Servicearrestedthevessel,andaftertheMullanespostedsecurity  \  intheamountof$125,000.00,thevesselwasreleasedtothem.   ChambersandFaresefiledananswerandcounterclaimonOctober5, d  1998.Intheircounterclaim,ChambersandFaresesoughttohave `  thetransfertotheMullanessetasideasafraudulenttransferto   defraudcreditorsundertheUniformFraudulentTransferAct,Mass. h Gen.Lawsch.109A,112. d  ` OnFebruary29,2000,CousinsandtheSheriff's  Departmentfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,contendingthat l theyhadexercisedduediligenceindeterminingtherecordownerof h thevesselbyrelyingupontheDOTrecordsandbyconfirming  ownershipthroughtheCoastGuard.TheMullanesopposedthemotion p  onthegroundsthatthearrestwasimproperunderstatelawand !l" thattheSheriff'sDepartmentwasliablefortheclaimeddamagesto "$ thevesselunderabailmenttheory.Whilethemotionwasunder t$& advisement,onMarch22,2000,theSheriff'sDepartmentfileda  &p!( motiontoenterandinspectthevessel,whichthecourtallowed. '#* ClaimingthattheMullaneshadengagedinbadfaithconductby x)$, failingtolaunchthevesselorprovideadequateelectricalsupply $+t&. asrequiredbytheMarch22order,onJune1,2000,theDepartment  filedamotiontobartheMullanes'claimsregardingclaimed \ damagestothemechanical,electrical,andplumbingsystemsofthe X vessel.OnJune21,thecourtallowedthemotionforsummary   judgmentandthemotiontobarsuchclaims.TheSheriff's `  Departmentalsofiledamotionforattorneys'fees,seeking  \  $43,720.44,anamountequaltothealloftheDepartment's   litigationexpensesaccrueduptothatpointinthecase.The d  courtallowedthefeemotiononMarch9,2001. `   ` InDecember2001,thecourtconductedafourdaybench   trial,andonJune6,2002,issuedanopinionandorderandentered h finaljudgment.ItdeterminedthattheMullaneswerebonafide d purchasersofthevesselasofJuly2,1998andthustookthe  vesselfreeofanyinterestsheldbyChambersandFarese.The l courtalsofoundthatthevesselwasdamagedwhileintheSheriff's h Department'scare,butthattheMullaneshadfailedtoprovethe  amountofdamages,andthat,inanyevent,theSheriff'sDepartment p  wasimmunefromdamages.Finally,thecourtimposed$100,000.00in !l" punitivedamagesagainstChambersandFarese,findingthattheyhad "$ intentionallydisregardedtheMullanes'rightstothevesselby t$& continuingtoassertaclaimtothevesselafterlearningofthe  &p!( Mullanes'unrecordedbillofsale. '#*  ` ChambersandFareseappealfromthedistrictcourt's x)$, judgmentandawardofpunitivedamages,andtheMullanescross $+t&. appealfromthedistrictcourt'sorderofattorneys'feesand  costs.j #  3       \    II  X k1 ` Asaninitialmatter,ChambersandFaresechallengethe   districtcourt'sjurisdiction,whichwereviewdenovo.SeeBull |  HNInfo.Sys.,Inc.v.Hutson,229F.3d321,328(1stCir.2000).1 ( x  Theamendedcomplaintinvokedthedistrictcourt'sadmiralty $  jurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.1333(1).Subsection1333(1),   28U.S.C.1333(1),grantstofederal"districtcourts... ,|  originaljurisdiction,exclusiveofthecourtsoftheStates,of: ( (1)Anycivilcaseofadmiraltyormaritimejurisdiction,savingto  suitorsinallcasesallotherremediestowhichtheyareotherwise 0 entitled."dn  #  4      ׀Itisbeyonddisputethatadmiraltyjurisdiction , extendstopossessoryandpetitoryactions.Wardv.Peck,59U.S.  (18How.)267,267 (1855)("Inthiscountry...theancient \ jurisdictionoverpetitorysuitsorcausesofpropertyhasbeen X retained[bycourtsofadmiralty].");Matsudav.Wada,128F.Supp.   2d659,669(D.Haw.2000)(collectingcases);seealso1S.F. `  Friedell,BenedictonAdmiralty201,at133(7thed.2002).A  \  possessoryactionisoneinwhichapartyseekstorecover   possessionofavesselofwhichshehasbeenwrongfullydeprived. d  Gallagherv.UnenrolledM/VRiverQueen,475F.2d117,119(5th `  Cir.1973);Friedell,supra,201,at132.Apetitorysuit,on   theotherhand,isonetoassertlegaltitletoavessel.Jonesv. h OneFiftyFootGulfstarMotorSailingYacht,625F.2d44,47(5th d Cir.1980);Matsuda,128F.Supp.2dat669;Friedell,supra,  201,at131.Theproceduretobefollowedinsuchcasesisset l outinRuleDoftheSupplementalRulesoftheFederalRulesof h CivilProcedure,whichprovides,inrelevantpart,"Inallactions  forpossession,partition,andtotrytitle...withrespectto p  avessel,...theprocessshallbebyawarrantofarrestofthe !l" vessel." "$ 2 ` Here,theMullanesassertedlegaltitleandsought t$& immediaterepossessionoftheirvessel,whichallegedlyhadbeen  &p!( wrongfullytakenbyChambers,Farese,andCousins.Andpursuantto '#* RuleD,theysuccessfullymovedthedistrictcourttoarrestthe  vessel.Thedistrictcourt,therefore,hadoriginalsubjectmatter \ jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1333(1). X L<PA ` ChambersandFareserelyuponalineofcasesholding   thatactionsseekingoriginalpossessionofthevesselpremised `  uponbreachofapurchaseagreementforthesaleofavesselfall  \  outsideadmiraltyjurisdiction.See,e.g.,RichardBertram&Co.   v.TheYacht,Wanda,447F.2d966,967(5thCir.1971).Chamber's d  andFarese'srelianceonthosecasesismisplaced.Thosecases `  standforthe"wellestablishedgeneralrulethatadmiraltywill   notentertainsuitswherethesubstantiverightsoftheparties h flowfromacontracttosellorconstructavessel."Jones,625 d F.2dat47.Bycontradistinction,theMullaneshadnocontractual  relationshipwithChambersandFareseandallegedthattheyheld l legaltitletothevesselandsoughtimmediaterepossessionofand h damagesforharmcausedtotheirvessel.Cf.id.󀀀  b> ` ChambersandFaresealsocontendthatthecourtlacked p  admiraltyjurisdictionbecausethevesselnolongerhadstatusas !l" a"vessel,"asitwas"outofservice"attheWindwardYachtYard "$ inNewburyport,Massachusetts,andthus"notoperatingcommercially t$& orotherwiseonamaritimeventureorpurpose."Chambersand  &p!( Fareseappeartobeinvokingthe"deadshipdoctrine,"underwhich '#* ashiplosesitsstatusasavesselwhenits"functionisso x)$, changedthatithasnofurthernavigationfunction."Goodmanv. $+t&. 197326FootTrojanVessel,Ark.RegistrationNo.AR1439SN,859  F.2d71,73(8thCir.1988);seealsoDluhosv.Floatingand \ AbandonedVessel,KnownasNewYork,162F.3d63,71(2dCir. X 1998).Simplytakingavesseltemporarilyoutofservice,however,   doesnotrenderitadeadship:astheSupremeCourthas `  instructed,"itisgenerallyacceptedthatavesseldoesnotcease  \  tobeavesselwhensheisnotvoyaging,butisatanchor,berthed,   oratdockside."Chandris,Inc.v.Latsis,515U.S.347,373 d  (1995)(internalquotationmarksomitted).ChambersandFarese `  offernoauthorityforthepropositionthatthedurationand   locationoftheCent'Anni'sstoragetakesitoutofadmiralty h jurisdiction.Inanyevent,theSheriff'sDepartmentseizedthe d vesselattheSeaportMarinainLynn,Massachusetts;onlylaterwas  thevesselmovedtoNewburyport,whereitwastemporarilytakenout l ofnavigationforsecuritypurposes. h  (83! !   III   rK ` Wenowturntothemerits.First,weaddressChambers'   andFarese'sappealofthedistrictcourt'srulingthatthe 8!" Mullanes'unrecordedbillofsalewasvalidagainstthem.Wethen "4$ turntotheirchallengetotheawardof$100,000.00inpunitive $& damages.Finally,weaddresstheMullanes'appealofthedistrict <&!( court'sawardof$43,720.44inattorneys'fees. '8#*     )$, A   M ` ChambersandFareseappealonthetheorythatthe x unrecordedconveyanceisinvalidasagainstthemundertheplain $t languageof46U.S.C.31321(a)(1).p #  5      ׀Beforedeterminingthis   issue,however,wefirstaddresstheMullanes'claimthatthelevy |  wasnotproperlyissuedunderstatelaw. ( x   ` AfterfindingthattheSheriff'sDepartmentwasrequired $  tocomplywithMass.Gen.Lawsch.223,44(2000)s  #  6      ׀beforeseizing   thevessel,thedistrictcourtheldthattheseizure"wascontrary ,|  tostatelaw"because"[n]oorderoraffidavitwasattachedtothe ( execution,norwasanywritofattachmentfiledwithth[e]  [district]court."Wedisagree.Section44simplydoesnotapply  toleviesofexecution:Section44appliesonlytoprejudgment \ attachments.Aprejudgmentattachmentisaprocessissuedbythe X courtbeforejudgmenthasbeenrendered,authorizingtheseizureof   therealandpersonalpropertyofthedefendanttobeheldas `  securityforanyjudgmenttheplaintiffmayrecoverintheaction.  \  SuchattachmentsaregovernedbyMass.Gen.Lawsch.223,4259   andMass.R.Civ.P.4.1. d   ` Incontrast,awritofexecutionistheprocessbywhich `  thejudgmentcreditorsatisfiesamoneyjudgmentagainstthe   judgmentdebtor.Mass.R.Civ.P.69;Millerv.London,1N.E.2d h 198,200(Mass.1936).Itconstitutesacourtordertoasheriff d orotherauthorizedofficertoseizeandsellthe"property,real  orpersonal,ofthedebtor,andinsomecasesindefaultof l propertytotakethebodyofthedebtorandcommithimtojail." h Miller,1N.E.2dat200.Executions,ingeneral,aregovernedby  Mass.Gen.Lawsch.235,323andMass.R.Civ.P.69,and p  leviesofexecutionsonpersonalpropertyaregovernedbyMass. !l" Gen.Laws.ch.235,2845.Otherthanpointingtothe "$ requirementsofMass.Gen.Laws.ch.223,44,theMullanesrely t$& onnootherstatuteorcaselaw,andwefoundnone,thatrequires  &p!( theSheriff'sDepartmenttodomorethanwhattheydidinthis '#* case.Inshortthelevyofthevesselwasproper,andthus x)$, ChambersandFareseperfectedtheirinterestinthevesselby $+t&. takingpossessionofitbeforetheMullaneshadrecordedtheir  priorpurchaseagreement.C!w \    B  X oZ ` Thisbringsustothecentralissueofthecase:whether   therecordingstatuterelatingtofederallydocumentedvessels,46 |  U.S.C.31321,rendersanunrecordedbillofsaleorconveyance ( x  invalidasagainstaseller'sjudgmentcreditorswholevythe $  vesselwithoutnotice.Subsection31321(a)(1),46U.S.C.   31321(a)(1),states: ,|    AZAbillofsale,conveyance,mortgage, ( assignment,orrelatedinstrument,whenever  made,thatincludesanypartofadocumented  vesseloravesselforwhichanapplication Z fordocumentationisfiled,mustbefiledwith 0 theSecretaryofTransportationtobevalid, V totheextentthevesselisinvolved,against , anypersonexcept!  (A)thegrantor,mortgagor,orassignor; ^ (B)theheirordeviseeofthegrantor,  Z mortgagor,orassignor;and 0 (C)apersonhavingactualnoticeofthesale,   conveyance,mortgage,assignment,orrelated b ! instrument. 8!"  \ {\(emphasisadded).Despitetheunambiguouslanguageofthestatute, "4$ theMullanesessentiallyaskthatwerewriteittoread,"against $& anypersonexcludingjudgmentcreditors."Certainlyanargument <&!( canbemadethatthedraftersintendedtoprotectonlysubsequent '8#* purchasers,mortgagees,andpossiblycreditorswhohadsomethingin )$, thenatureofaspecificlienonthevesselandtoexcludeother @+&. generalcreditorsofthevendor,likeChambersandFarese.  Nonetheless,strictlyasamatterofpolicy,Congresscouldhave \ decidedalsotoprotectgeneralcreditors.See,e.g.,Graeberv. X HickelInv.Co.,803P.2d871(Ala.1990)(discussingpolicy   reasonsforprotectingjudgment/executioncreditorswhorelyon `  titlerecordsbeforelevying).Infact,aswedemonstratebelow,  \  Congresshasexcludedjudgmentcreditorsfromtheprotectionsof   otherrecordingstatutes.Here,wearefacedwithplainand d  unambiguouslanguagethatextendstheprotectionsoftherecording `  statuteto"anyperson,"andlikeothercourtsthathaveconsidered   theissue,wefindnoextraordinarycircumstancessufficientto h requireustolookbeyonditsplainmeaning.Thepartiesinthis d controversyfailedtobrieftheissueinanyhelpfulmanner:  neitherbriefprovidesdevelopedargumentationorcitestoanycase l lawsupportingtherespectivepositions,eventhoughsuchcaselaw h isavailableandlistedintheannotationstothestatute.Andthe  subsectionisnevermentionedinthedistrictcourt'sopinion.In p  sum,giventheplainandunambiguouslanguageofthestatute,we !l" holdthattheMullanes'unrecordedbillofsaleisinvalidagainst "$ ChambersandFareseunlesstheyhadactualnotice. t$&  ` Inconstruingthetermsofastatute,westartwiththe  &p!( statutorytext,accordingititsordinarymeaningbyreferenceto '#* the"specificcontextinwhichthatlanguageisused,andthe x)$, broadercontextofthestatuteasawhole."Robinsonv.ShellOil $+t&. Co.,519U.S.337,341(1997);seealsoInreBajgar,104F.3d495,  497(1stCir.1997).Whenthestatutorylanguageisplainand \ unambiguous,"judicialinquiryiscomplete,exceptinrareand X exceptionalcircumstances."Rubinv.UnitedStates,449U.S.424,   430(1981)(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted);seealso `  Barnhartv.SigmonCoalCo.,534U.S.438,450(2002);Pritzkerv.  \  Yari,42F.3d53,6768(1stCir.1994)("Wewillnotdepartfrom,   orotherwiseembellish,thelanguageofastatuteabsenteither d  undeniabletextualambiguityorsomeotherextraordinary `  consideration,suchastheprospectofyieldingapatentlyabsurd   result.").e #  7      ׀Thisisnotoneofthosecases. h  ` Thereisnothingambiguousabouttheterm"anyperson." d Congresschosethebroadestpossibletermtodescribethethird  partiesitintendedtoprotect,anddidnotqualifytheterminany l way.Thestatuteaswrittenthusextendsprotectiontoany h creditors,includingjudgmentcreditorslikeChambersandFarese,  whorelyupontherecordtitleofthevessel.Severalstate p  supremecourtshaveappliedthestatuteaccordingly.Graeberv. !l" HickelInv.Co.,803P.2d871(Ala.1990);Bennerv.Scandinavian "$ Am.Bank,131P.1149(Wash.1913);Secristv.GermanIns.Co.,19  OhioSt.476(1869);Potterv.Irish,76Mass.416(1858);seealso \ Ellisv.Rickett,164N.Y.S.243(N.Y.App.Div.1917)(citing X ParkerMillsv.Jacot,21N.Y.Super.Ct.161(1861));cf.   LewistownPropaneCo.v.Ford,308Mont.243,24547(2002) `  (construingsimilarprovisionofFederalAviationActasprotecting  \  judgmentcreditors);BankofHonoluluv.Davids,709P.2d613,619   (Haw.Ct.App.1985)(same);Marsdenv.S.FlightServ.,227F. d  Supp.411,415,41819(M.D.N.C.1961)(same).Thesecourts `  reasonedthatCongressintendedtoprotectanythirdparty,   includingattachmentorjudgmentcreditors,whoreliesuponthe h titlerecordsandfoundnoevidencethatCongressintendedto d excludeanyclassofpersonsfromtheterm"anyperson."Neither  havewe. l  ` Thisreadingofthesubsectionisreinforcedwhen h consideringitsremarkablebreadthwhencomparedwiththelanguage  Congresshasusedinotherrecordingstatutes.See,e.g.,7U.S.C. p  2531(d)("[C]onveyance...shallbevoidasagainstany !l" subsequentpurchaserormortgageeforavaluableconsideration, "$ withoutnotice,unlessit...isfiledforrecordinginthePlant t$& VarietyProtectionOffice....")(emphasisadded);17U.S.C.  &p!( 1320(d)("[C]onveyance...shallbevoidasagainstany '#* subsequentpurchaserormortgageeforavaluableconsideration, x)$, unlessitisrecordedintheOfficeoftheAdministrator....") $+t&. (emphasisadded);35U.S.C.261("[C]onveyanceshallbevoidas  againstanysubsequentpurchaserormortgageeforavaluable \ consideration,withoutnotice,unlessitisrecordedinthePatent X andTrademarkOffice....").IfCongressmeanttoexcludea   particularclassofpersonsfromtheprotectionof31321(a)(1), `  itcertainlyknewhowandcouldhavedonesoclearlyand  \  explicitly.    ` Ouracceptanceoftheterm"anyperson"atfacevalueis d  furtherbuttressedbytheoverallpurposeofthesubsection.The `  languageofsubsection31321(a)(1),likethatofotherrecording   statutes,revealsalegislativeintenttoprotectthirdpartieswho h relyuponthetitlerecordsofthevessel.Likeothercreditors, d judgmentcreditorsrelyuponthesedocumentsatexpenseandrisk.  Ifawrongfullevyismadeonavessel,whichisthensoldata l sheriff'ssale,theycouldbeheldliablefortrespass,conversion, h anddamages,andwouldberesponsiblefortheirownlegalfeesin  defendingthelevyagainstunrecordedinterests.Thiscase p  presentsanaptillustration.Inadditiontobeingresponsiblefor !l" theirownlegalfeesindefendingthelevy,ChambersandFarese "$ wereheldresponsiblefor$100,000.00inpunitivedamagesfor t$& pressingtheirclaimtothevessel.Furthermore,asaunanimous  &p!( AlaskaSupremeCourtreasoned,anattachingorjudgmentcreditor '#* could"beinjuredbytheirrelianceontheerroneous[title] x)$, record[:thecreditor]mightbeliableto[theholderofthe $+t&. unrecordedbillofsale]fordamagesresultingfromthesinkingof  thevesselorforitslostuseeventhough[thecreditor]seized \ thevesselinrelianceontherecordofownershipexactlyasit X shouldhave."Graeber,803P.2dat873.    ` Itisalsoworthnotingthat,despitethecaselaw `  extendingprotectiontoattachmentandjudgmentcreditorsandthe  \  useofmorespecifictermsinotherrecordingstatutes,see,e.g.,   35U.S.C.261("[C]onveyanceshallbevoidasagainstany d  subsequentpurchaserormortgageeforavaluableconsideration, `  withoutnotice,unlessitisrecorded...."),Congresshastwice   reenactedtherecordingstatuteandretainedtheterm"anyperson" h todescribethethirdpartiesitintendedtoprotect.f #  8       d  ` Werecognizethattwostatecourtshavereacheda  differentconclusion,holdingthatthestatutewasintendedto l protectonlysubsequentpurchasersandmortgagees.Thesecourts h reliedonthegeneralcommonlawrulethattherightsofan  attachingorjudgmentcreditorarenogreaterthanthoseheldby p  thedebtor;inotherwords,thecreditor'srightsarelimitedto !l" thedebtor'sactualtitleintheproperty.FortPittNat'lBankv.  Williams,9So.117,11819(La.1891);Richardsonv.Montgomery, \ 49Pa.203,20610(1865).TheWilliamscourtfurtherreasoned X thatthevesselrecordingstatutewaspassed"simplytoprotect   personswhohavedealtonthefaithoftherecordedtitle,andas `  towhomitwouldbefraudtogiveeffecttounrecordedtitlesto  \  theirdetriment,"agroupwhichwouldnotincludejudgment   creditors.9So.at119. d   ` Simplyrelyinguponthecommonlawprincipleof"firstin `  time,firstinright"isunpersuasive.Atcommonlaw,withoutthe   benefitofrecordingstatutes,thissameprincipleappliedto h subsequentpurchasersandmortgagees.5H.T.Tiffany&B.Jones, d TiffanyRealProp.Ch.34,1257(2002).IfAconveyedproperty  toBandthenmadeanidenticalconveyancetoC,Bprevailedover l ConthetheorythatAnolongerhadanyinteresttoconvey. h Takingtheargumenttoitslogicalterminusthenwouldleadtothe  unpalatableresultthatsubsequentpurchaserswouldnotbe p  protectedbythevesselstatuteonthegroundthatwhenthey !l" purchasedthevessel,thevendornolongerhadaninteresttosell. "$ Buttherecordingactchangedthisresult.Moreover,whileitis t$& ordinarilytruethattherightsofanattachingorjudgment  &p!( creditordonothavepriorityoverapriorunrecordedconveyance, '#* manystateshaveabrogatedthisprinciplebyprotectingcreditor's x)$, rightsthrougharecordingstatute.See,e.g.,Mullerv. $+t&. Waldschmidt,185B.R.522,55455(Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1995)  (construingTenn.CodeAnn.6626103asprotectingjudgment \ creditors);Whitakerv.Hill,179S.W.539(Tex.App.1915) X (holdingthatformerversionofTex.PropertyCodeAnn.13.001   changedthecommonlawrulebyprotectingexecutioncreditors);see `  alsoSkyHarbor,Inc.v.Jenner,435P.2d894,89697(Colo.1968);  \  HillsideCoop.Bankv.Cavanaugh,122N.E.187,189(Mass.1919);   Blumv.Schwartz,20S.W.54,5556(Tex.1892);Hitzv.Nat'l d  Metro.Bank,111U.S.722,728(1884).Andtosaythatjudgment `  creditorswhorely"onthefaithoftherecordedtitle"when   levyingtheirexecutiondonotdoso"totheirdetriment"is h baseless.Aswesaid,judgmentcreditorsmayrelyupontitle d recordsattheriskofbeingheldliablefortrespass,conversion,  andanydamagesustainedtothevesselduringawrongfullevy. l  ` Mostimportant,thesecourtspointtonotextualbasis h forsayingthatsubsection31321(a)(1)appliestopurchasersand  mortgageesalone.CertainlyCongressisnotrequiredtolistevery p  "person"ithadinmindwhenitsaysthatitisprotecting"any !l" person."Inshort,withoutsomeindicationfromCongressthatit "$ intendedtoexcludejudgmentcreditors,wewillnotengraftsucha t$& policylimitationonthestatute.AsinstructedbytheSupreme  &p!( Court,"courtsmustpresumethatalegislaturesaysinastatute '#* whatitmeansandmeansinastatutewhatitsaysthere.Whenthe x)$, wordsofastatuteareunambiguous,then,thisfirstcanonisalso $+t&. thelast:'judicialinquiryiscomplete.'"Conn.Nat'lBankv.  Germain,503U.S.249,253-54(1992)(quotingRubin,449U.S.at \ 430).Becausesubsection31321(a)(1)isexplicitastowhomit X protects,ourinquiryisatanend.g #  9          ` ChambersandFaresearenotyetoutofthedeep, `  however.Therecordingstatuteprotectsonlythosepersonshaving  \  noactualnoticeoftheunrecordedconveyanceatthetimetheir   interestsattached.42U.S.C.31321(a)(1)(C).Thedistrict d  courtfoundthatChambersandFaresehadnoticeoftheunrecorded `  conveyanceeitheratthetimeoftheseizureorsoonthereafter.   Thecrucialquestion,however,iswhethertheyhadactualnotice h eitherbeforeoratthetimeofthelevy.Itisnotsufficient d thattheylearnedoftheunrecordedconveyanceaftertheylevied  uponthevessel.Becausethedistrictcourtdidnotapply l subsection31321(a)(1)anddidnotmakeafactualfindingasto h whetherChambersandFaresehadactualnoticeatthetimeofthe  levy,weremandthecaseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith p  thisopinion.IfChambersandFaresedidnothaveactualnotice, !l" thentheMullanes'complaintagainstthemshouldbedismissed,and "$ theirseizureofthevesselwasvalidtoenforceajudgmentdebt t$& againsttheMurphys.Becausethevesselhasnowbeenreleased  &p!( underwhatwouldinthosecircumstancesbeanerroneousorder,we  leaveittothedistrictcourtonremandtosortthroughthe \ remainingissues. X  ` Wemakeonefinalnote.Ifthedistrictcourtfindsthat   ChambersandFaresehadactualnoticeofthetransfer,there `  remainstheissueofwhetherthetransferwasfraudulentasdefined  \  bysection5oftheUniformFraudulentTransferAct,Mass.Gen.   Laws.ch.109A,5,whichwouldallowChambersandFaresetoavoid d  itunderMass.Gen.Laws.ch.109A,8.Despitebeingraisedin `  Chambers'andFarese'scounterclaim,thedistrictcourtnevercited   tooranalyzedChapter109A,presumablybecauseofitsholdingthat h thevalidityofthetransferwasgovernedbyfederallaw,notstate d law.SeeMullane,206F.Supp.2dat10910.However,weagree  withChambersandFaresethatstatelawgovernsthevalidityofthe l transferandthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveconsideredwhether h thetransferwasavoidableunderMass.Gen.Laws.ch.109A,8,  and/orwhethertheMullaneshadanydefensesunderMass.Gen.Laws. p  ch.109A,9.SeeChaseManhattanFin.Servs.v.McMillian,896 !l" F.2d452,460(10thCir.1990)(holdingthatstatelaw,not "$ admiralty,governsthevalidityoftransfersoftitle);St.Paul t$& Fire&MarineIns.Co.v.VestTransp.Co.,666F.2d932,938(5th  &p!( Cir.1982);Jones,625F.2dat4749(applyingFloridalawto '#* determinetitle);S.C.Loveland,Inc.v.EastWestTowing,Inc., x)$, 608F.2d160,164(5thCir.1979);Gilmore&Black,supra,at26& $+t&. n.90(notingthatcontractsforthesaleofavesselarenon  maritime);cf.Stewart&Co.v.Rivara,274U.S.614,618(1927). \  ` WerecognizethatMass.Gen.Lawsch.109A,9provides X severaldefensesto"apersonwhotookingood-faith,"whichvary   dependingonwhetherthepersonhadpaid"reasonablyequivalent `  value"fortheproperty,andthatthedistrictcourtfoundthatDr.  \  Mullanewasabonafidepurchaserforvaluewithoutnoticeofany   adverseclaimstothevesselandthusconcludedthatwhetherthe d  underlyingtransactionwasfraudulentwasimmaterial.Inmaking `  thisruling,however,thecourtfailedtoconsiderthespecific   sectionsoforthecaselawinterpretingChapter109Aandinstead h patchedtogetherdefinitionsandelementsfromtheMassachusetts d UniformCommercialCodeindeterminingwhetheradefensetoa  fraudulenttransferexisted.Italsomadeitsrulingwithoutever l determiningwhethertheunderlyingtransfertoMullanewas h fraudulentunderMass.Gen.Laws.ch.109A,5.Wecannotsay  fromthedistrictcourt'sopinionwhetheritsuseofahodgepodge p  ofdefinitionsandstandardsanditsfailuretomakeaninitial !l" determinationofwhetherthetransferwas,infact,fraudulentmade "$ anydifferenceinthiscase.Webelievethatitisinthe t$& interestsofallconcernedtohavetheentirefraudulenttransfer  &p!( claimdecidedbythedistrictcourtinthefirstinstance.We '#*  thereforevacatethedistrictcourt'srulingonthisissueand x)$, remandthecasetothedistrictcourtsothatitmayascertain  whetherthesalewasafraudulenttransfer. \    C  X ? ` ChambersandFaresealsoappealthedistrictcourt's   awardof$100,000.00inpunitivedamages.Eventhoughthe |  plaintiffsdidnotseekpunitivedamages,thecourtsuasponte ( x  awardedthem,reasoningthat $    defendants'conductinthiscaseconstituted   anintentionalandconsciousdisregardforthe V  rightsofplaintiffs.Whenthedefendantshad ,|  thevesselseizedtheywereeitheraware,or R soonbecameaware,that[Murphy]hadsoldhis ( ownershipinterestinthevesseltoDr.  Mullane.Theyneverthelesscontinuedto  assertarighttothevesselinsatisfaction Z ofDavidMurphy'sdebt,andbythatcourseof 0 actiondeprivedDr.Mullaneofhisrightswith V respecttopossessionanduseofthevessel. ,    SMullanev.Chambers,206F.Supp.2d105,119(D.Mass.2002).  Essentially,thecourtawardedpunitivedamagesmerelybecause 4 ChambersandFaresecontinuedtoasserttheirlegalclaimstothe 0 vesselaftertheMullanesfinallypresentedtheirbillofsale.   Givenourholdingabove,thereisnolongerabasisfortheaward. 8!" Butitisimportanttonotethatwewouldhavereversedevenifwe "4$ hadfoundinfavoroftheMullanes.Itistruethatpunitive $& damagesareavailableinadmiralty"wheredefendant'sintentional <&!( orwantonandrecklessconductamountedtoaconsciousdisregardof '8#* therightsofothers."CEH,Inc.v.F/VSeafarer,70F.3d694,699 )$, (1stCir.1995)(collectingcases).However,itisequallytrue @+&. thatpunitivedamagesare"rarelyimposed."Id.Itshouldgo  withoutsayingthatsimplypresentingadefenseinalawsuitisnot \ thetypeofconductthatwarrantspunitivedamages.Thiswasnot X acasebytheMullanesofabuseofprocessormalicious   prosecution,norwasthereanyfindingofaviolationofRule11of `  theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Tellingly,atoralargument  \  theMullanesagreedthattherewasnothingintherecordtosupport   punitivedamagesandthattheycouldnotdefendsuchanaward. d  Thus,wereversetheawardof$100,000.00inpunitivedamages. `     D  _  ` Finally,weturntotheMullanes'appealofthedistrict *z court'sawardofattorneys'feestotheSheriff'sDepartment.h #  10      ׀ & ThereisanaggingissueofjurisdictionsincetheMullanesfiled  theirnoticeofappealmorethanthirtydaysaftertheJune6final .~ judgmentwasentered.Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(1)(providingthat * noticeofappealmustbefiledwithin30daysafterthejudgmentor  orderhasbeenentered);id.4(a)(7)("Ajudgmentororderis 2   enteredforpurposesofthisRule4(a)whenitisenteredin !." compliancewithRules58and79(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivil #$ Procedure.").i #  11      ׀ 6% &  ` Wethinkithelpfultosketchtheproceduralbackground.  AfterthedistrictcourtgrantedtheSheriff'sDepartmentmotionto \ barclaimsconcerningdamagestothemechanical,electrical,and X plumbingsystemsonthegroundthattheMullaneshadengagedinbad   faithconducttopreventtheSheriff'sDepartmentfrommountinga `  defense,theDepartmentfiledamotionforattorneys'feesunder  \  Rule54(d)(2)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,invokingthe   court'sinherentpowerstosanctiontheMullanes.OnMarch9, d  2001,thecourtissuedanopinionandorder,inwhichitawarded `  attorneys'fees,madeapresumptivefindingthatareasonablefee   awardwas$43,720.44(theamountoftheentirelitigationupto h thatpoint),andallowedeachpartyfiveweekstofileamotionfor  amodification.Theorderalsoprovidedthatifnopartyfiled \ suchamotion,theclerkwas"authorizedtomakeanOrderawarding X attorneys'feesintheamountofthecourt'spresumptivefinding,   togetherwithtaxablecosts."Thecourt'sopinionandorderwere `  enteredonthedocketonMarch9.OnApril17,2001,theMullanes  \  filedamotiontomodify,whichthecourtdeniedatacase   managementconferenceonJuly31,2001.Althoughtheclerkmadea d  notationofthecourt'sdenialonthedocket,itdidnotissuea `  separateorderorjudgment.    ` Onthefirstdayoftrial,onDecember11,2001,the   Sheriff'sDepartmentfiledamotionforfinaljudgmentastoless g thanallpartiesunderFed.R.Civ.P.54(b)ontheordergranting c itsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,tobarclaims,andforattorneys'  fees.TheMullanesfiledanopposition.Finally,onJune6,2002, k thecourtissuedanopinionandorder,inwhichit,amongother g things,orderedtheSheriff'sDepartment'sRule54(b)motiontobe   dismissedasmootandorderedtheclerktoenterafinaljudgment o!" onaseparatedocumentasfollows:"Forthereasonsexplainedin #k$ theOpinionandOrderofJune6,2002,itisORDERED,Plaintiffs $ & areherebydeclaredandadjudgedtobethetrueownersofthe s&!( MotorizedYachtCent'Anni.Judgmentfortheplaintiffsinthe (o#* amountof$100,000.00,pluscosts."Theclerkenteredthefinal )%, judgmentaccordinglyonJune6. w+&.  ` OnJuly18,2002,afterthetimeforfilinganoticeof  appealhadexpired,theMullanesfiledamotionrequestinga \ separateentryofjudgmentontheordersgrantingtheSheriff's X Departmentmotionsforsummaryjudgmentandforattorneys'fees,   or,inthealternative,forleavetofileanoticeofappeallate. `  InamemorandumandorderissuedonAugust6,2002,thecourt  \  deniedthemotion.Accordingtothecourt,takingtogetherthe   ordersofJune21,2000(allowinginpartmotionforsummary d  judgment),March9,2001(allowingmotionforattorneys'fees),and `  June6(rulinginfavoroftheSheriff'sDepartmentonimmunity   grounds),establishedthattheMullanes"wonnothing...against h the[Sheriff'sDepartment]andthatthe[Sheriff'sDepartment]won d attorneys'feesof$43,720.44."Thecourtconcludedthat"[w]hen  theFinalJudgmentofJune6,2002closedthecase,theprevious l interlocutoryordersinfavorofthesheriffinsomerespectsand h againsthiminotherbecamefinalbecausethecasewasdeclared  closedbyaFinalJudgment."Wedisagree. p   ` OurstartingpointisRule54(d).Rule54(d)(A) o!" provides,inpart,thatupongrantingamotionforattorneys'fees, #k$ "[t]hecourtshallfindthefactsandstateitsconclusionsoflaw $ & asprovidedinRule52(a),andajudgmentshallbesetforthina s&!(  separatedocumentasprovidedinRule58."Fed.R.Civ.P. (o#* 54(d)(2)(C)(emphasisadded).FormerRule58k #  12      ׀requiredthat   "[e]veryjudgment...besetforthonaseparatedocument"and \ providedthata"judgmentiseffectiveonlywhensosetforthand X whenenteredasprovidedinRule79(a)."Thetimethenforfiling   anoticeofappealontheorderawardingattorneys'feesdidnot `  starttorununlessanduntilaseparatejudgmentwasentered.  \  See,e.g.,Greenv.Nevers,196F.3d627,63031(6thCir.1999).    ` AlthoughRule58doesnotrequirethataseparate   judgmentuseanyparticularwordsorformofwords,nonetheless,we c  interpretRule58fairlystrictly;astheSupremeCourthas _ instructed,Rule58"mustbemechanicallyappliedtoavoidnew   uncertaintiesastothedateonwhichajudgmentisentered." g UnitedStatesv.Indrelunas,411U.S.216,222(1973).Ingeneral, c thejudgmentshouldbeselfsufficient,complete,anddescribethe  partiesandtherelieftowhichthepartyisentitled.Willhauck k v.Halpin,919F.2d788,792794(1stCir.1990);Reytblattv. g Denton,812F.2d1042,104344(7thCir.1987)(collectingcases);   ClaybrookDrillingCo.v.Divanco,Inc.,336F.2d697,699(10th o!" Cir.1964);11C.Wright,A.Miller,&E.Cooper,FederalPractice #k$ andProcedure2785,at22(2ded.1995)("[T]heseparatejudgment $ & ...shouldbeselfsufficientandshouldnotmerelyincorporate  otherdocumentsbyreference...."). \  ` InitsorderdenyingtheMullanes'motionforentryof [ judgmentonaseparatedocument,thedistrictcourtseemedtosay  W thattheJune6FinalJudgmentwassuchadocument.Weagreethat   itistheonlyrelevantdocument,asthecourt'sMarch9,2001, _   conditionalorderallowingfeesandtheclerk'snotationregarding  [  thecourt'sdenialofthemotiontomodifyclearlydonotsuffice   forRule58purposes.SeeDomeganv.Ponte,972F.2d401,405(1st c  Cir.1992)(notingthatseparatejudgmentmustbeseparateand _ distinctfromanyopinionormemorandum);accordGreen,196F.3dat   630(sameandnotingthat"adocketentryisnotsufficient.").We g holdthattheJune6FinalJudgmentwasinsufficienttoserveasa c separatejudgmentontheawardofattorneys'fees:theFinal  Judgmentsimplyfailedtomakeanymentionoftheaward.We k recognizethatcourtshavebeenwillingtoacceptjudgmentsas g sufficientforRule58purposeswheretheyincorporatebyreference   theunderlyingopinionororder.11Wright,Miller&Cooper, o!" supra,2785,2223(collectingcasesbutobservingthatthisis #k$ "inconsistentwiththeSupremeCourt's...pronouncementthatthe $ & separatedocumentrequirementofRule58istobe'mechanically s&!( applied'").However,thisdoesnotchangetheresultinthiscase. (o#* IntheJune6opinionandorder,afteracknowledgingthatithad )%, issuedinterlocutoryorders(1)allowinginparttheSheriff's w+&. Department'smotionforsummaryjudgmentand(2)themotiontobar  claims,thecourtstatedthatthoserulingsdidnotdisposeofall \ claimsagainsttheDepartment,andwentontoholdthatthe X Department'sseizureofthevesselviolatedstatelawbutthatit   wasimmunefromdamages.Innoplaceintheopiniondidthecourt `  discusstheawardofattorneys'feesorintimatethatsuchfeeshad  \  everbeenawarded.Itwassimplysilentontheissue.    ` Becausenoseparatejudgmenthasbeen"entered"under   Rule58,thetimeforfilinganoticeofappealhasnotyetbegun c  torun.SeeFed.R.App.P.4(a)(7)(providingthatajudgmentor _ orderis"entered...whenitisenteredincompliancewithRules   58").Giventhatthedistrictcourttreatedtheorderallowing g attorneys'feesasanappealableorderandthatthepartiesdonot c objecttotreatingitassuch,wefindnoreasontoremandfor  formalcompliancewithRule58.Domegan,972F.2d401(holding k thatcourthadjurisdictionwherenoseparatejudgmenthadbeen g entered,eventhoughnoticeofappealwasnottimelyfiledas   measuredfromthefinaldecision),vacatedonothergrounds,507 o!" U.S.956(1993);seealsoGreen,196F.3dat631(findingtimely #k$ appeal,eventhoughnoticeofappealwasfiled33daysafterthe $ & entryoftheappealableorder);M.Zachary,Rules58and79(a)of s&!( theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure:AppellateJurisdictionand (o#* theSeparateJudgmentandDocketEntryRequirements,40N.Y.L.Sch. )%, L.Rev.409,426(1996);butseeFiorev.WashingtonCty.Cmty. w+&. MentalHealthCenter,960F.2d229,236(1stCir.1992)(enbanc)  (notingthatapartycanwaiveseparatejudgmentrequirementwhere \ thepartyfailstoactwithinthreemonths).Therefore,the X Mullanes'appealistimelyandwehavejurisdiction.Wenow   `XDXXXDproceedtothemerits. `   ` Underthewellestablished"AmericanRule,"attorneys' _   feesarenotrecoverablebyapartyunlessstatutorilyor  [  contractuallyauthorized.However,acourtpossessesinherent   equitablepowerstoawardattorneys'feesagainstapartythat"has c  'actedinbadfaith,vexatiously,wantonly,orforoppressive _ reasons.'"WhitneyBros.Co.v.Sprafkin,60F.3d8,13(1stCir.   1995)#XDXX`XDv#`XDXXXD(quotingChambersv.NASCO,Inc.,501U.S.32,45-46(1991)). g Wereviewsuchawardsforabuseofdiscretion,#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXDChambers,501U.S. c at55,andrecognizethatdistrictcourtsaregivenbroaddeference  inorderto"streamlinethelitigationprocessbyfreeingthe k appellatecourtsfromthedutyofreweighingevidence...already g weighedandconsideredbythedistrictcourt,"#XDXX[XD#`XDXXXDCooter&Gellv.   HartmarxCorp.,496U.S.384,404(1990)).#XDXX`XDf#`XDXXXDԀNevertheless, o!" "[b]ecauseoftheirverypotency,inherentpowersmustbeexercised #k$ withrestraintanddiscretion,"Chambers,501U.S.at44(citation $ & omitted),andthus"'shouldbeusedsparinglyandreservedfor s&!( egregiouscircumstances,'"WhitneyBros.Co.,60F.3dat13 (o#* (quotingJonesv.WinnepesaukeeRealty,990F.2d1,4(1stCir. )%, 1993)).#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXDWe,therefore,requirethatadistrictcourt"describethe w+&. badfaithconductwith'sufficientspecificity,'accompaniedbya  'detailedexplanationofthereasonsjustifyingtheaward.'"#XDXX[XD0#`XDXXXDId. \ (quotingGradmann&Hollerv.Cont'l,679F.2d272,274(1stCir. X 1982)).#XDXX`XDX#[XDXXXD    ` Here,thedistrictcourtprovidedconclusorystatements,   withoutspecificity,insupportofawardingattorneys'fees: _      Ontherecordbeforeme,Ifindthat ^  thecombinedconductofplaintiffsandtheir 4  attorneysegregiouslyincreasedthe  Z  contentiousnessofcommunicationsbearingon 0  disclosure,discovery,anddelay,andresulted  inneedlessandunreasonableaddedburdensof  expense,delay,andincreasedhoursof b attorneytimeintherepresentationof 8 defendantCousinsandothersactingforhimor ^ inassociationwithhim. 4  InthesecircumstancesImakea  ] presumptivefinding,ontherecordbeforeme, 3 thatanawardof$43,720.44,asproposedin   DocketNo.23,atpage10,isreasonable.A  reasonabletimewillbeallowed,intheorder e below,tochallengethispresumptivefinding. ;   Thisisnotsufficientformeaningfulappellatereview,asitmakes  noattempttodescribe"thebadfaithconductwithsufficient 9  specificity,"ortoprovidea"detailedexplanationofthereasons !5! justifyingtheaward."#XDXX[XD#`XDXXXDWhitneyBros.Co.,60F.3dat13(internal ## quotationmarksandcitationomitted)#XDXX`XDľ#[XDXXXD.Althoughtheremaybe =% % circumstanceswherewewouldvacateanawardandremandtothe &9"' districtcourtforafullerexplanationfortheaward,thiscase (#) doesnotwarrantsuchproceedings.Assupportforattorneys'fees, A*%+ theSheriff'sDepartmentreliessolelyontheMullanes'alleged +='- failuretocomplywiththedistrictcourt'sMarch22,2000order,  inwhichthedistrictcourtorderedtheMullanestoputthevessel \ inthewaterandtoprovideanadequateelectricalsupply.When X theSheriff'sDepartmentarrivedtoinspectthevesselonMay26,   2000,itremaineddrydockedandwithoutanadequateelectrical `  supply.TheSheriff'sDepartmentpointstonootheractionsonthe  \  partoftheMullanesortheirattorneysthatarerelevanttothe   award.WhiletheMullanes'andtheirattorneys'failuretoabide d  bythedistrictcourt'sMarch22ordermighthavebeengroundsfor `  discoverysanctions,includingattorneys'feescausedbythe   failure,wethinkitinsufficientaloneto#XDXX[XDg#`XDXXXDsupportafindingthat h theMullanesortheirattorneys"'actedinbadfaith,vexatiously, d wantonly,orforoppressivereasons.'"WhitneyBros.Co.v.  Sprafkin,60F.3d8,13(1stCir.1995)#XDXX`XDĬ#`XDXXXD(quotingChambersv.NASCO, l Inc.,501U.S.32,45-46(1991)).#XDXX`XD#[XDXXXDԀWe,therefore,vacatethe h entiretyoftheattorneys'feesaward.     IV    * ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weREVERSEandREMANDthe !." districtcourt'sdecisioninfavoroftheMullanesforfurther #$ proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion,REVERSEthedistrict 6% & court'sawardof$100,000inpunitivedamages,andREVERSEthe &2"( districtcourt'sawardofattorneys'fees.#XDXX[XDĚ#