B & M LEASING CORP., AS OWNER OF DOUGLAS DC-3 AIRCRAFT, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not misapply the law or make clearly erroneous fact findings.
The United States sued aircraft owners for operating without a commercial operator certificate and a second pilot, alleging sham leases. The owners cl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The United States brought a libel against a Douglas DC-3 aircraft, and its owners, under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1473, to recover penalties prescribed by 49 U.S.C.A. § 1471(a) for alleged violations of 49 U. S.C.A. § 1430(a) and regulations issued thereunder. Specifically, the United States charged that the owners of the aircraft operated it or caused it to be operated in carrying passengers for compensation or hire without a commercial operator certificate issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency as required by Section 45.2 of the Civil Air Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 45.2; and without having a second pilot on board the aircraft as required by Section 42.41(c) of the Civil Air Regulations, 14 C.F.R. 42.41(c).
The owners of the aircraft asserted that they had not operated the aircraft in carrying passengers for compensation or hire, but had leased it, and hence were not required to have certificates and were not responsible for the absence of a second pilot. The United States contended and the district court tacitly found that the leases were sham and did not correctly state the true relationship of the parties. A judgment was entered against the owners for statutory penalties from which this appeal has been taken-
It does not appear that the district court misconstrued or misapplied the law. Nor does it appear that the fact findings of the court are clearly erroneous. No purpose would be served by a recital of the evidence.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.