LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 12 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On December 11, 2009, the Company, its CEO and transfer agent were named as defendants in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, by 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages in an amount greater than $15,000, punitive damages to be determined at trial, injunctive relief requiring the defendants to reissue the plaintiff’s stock without the restrictive legends, injunctive relief barring the defendants from removing the stock legends from any Seafarer stock until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, injunctive relief barring the defendants from selling their Seafarer stock, directly or indirectly, until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to have their shares reissued without the restrictive legend, such other incidental and consequential damages as may be proven at trial, costs, interest, and legal expenses allowed by law and such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company contends that the restrictive legends were either (i) not qualified for removal under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, (ii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts supporting removal of the restrictive legends, or (iii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the distribution was not part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. On September 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in the matter. Upon review of the facts of the case, counsel filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, in which pleading and supporting affidavit, the Company presented factual allegations that the initial investment by one of the Plaintiff’s, Micah Eldred, was made in the private company of Seafarer, Inc. on June 15, 2007 for $5,000. The Company alleged in its responsive court filing, that at the time of the investment, share rights and disbursal of such shares in the public company, Eldred was a registered and licensed broker with the NASD; any ownership interests and in this case a control position held by Eldred would have had to have been reported to overseeing authorities. On May 22, 2012, the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment at which time the court heard argument on the motion. The Plaintiffs argued that as a matter of law, that they were entitled to removal of the legend under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Seafarer and the transfer agent argued that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to removal of the restrictive legend due to the allegations and evidence that the lead Plaintiff, Eldred, was involved in an illegal distribution of the shares originally in order to avoid registration. The Court ruled in favor of the Defendants, Seafarer Exploration and the transfer agent, denying the motion for summary judgment as to removal of the restrictive legend from such shares. Such litigation continues in the discovery phase currently including requests to produce and interrogatories, but no further Court events are scheduled. On February 24, 2011, the Company was named as defendants in Case Number 11000393CC filed in the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida, by a limited liability company. The limited liability company is claiming that the Company owes $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees under a lease agreement. The plaintiff is demanding that the court render judgment against the Company in the amount of $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 720.305(1) of the Florida Statutes costs and other relief as the court deems just and proper. Management believes that the limited liability company was paid all of the fees owed to it under the lease agreement and the Company plans to mount a vigorous defense against this claim and is currently seeking all attorney’s fees and costs for what it sees as a spurious claim. The Company has presented proof of payment for all billed liabilities and believes that full payment was made. The Company has filed and will keep pending a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the cause of action. On February 21, 2013, both parties settled the matter with neither party making any admission of liability. On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay. The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to the Company, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against the Company and its CEO, individually, alleging that the Company and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that the Company’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. At the time of the filing of this form 10-Q, the Company’s motions have not been set for hearing and dispositions by the court.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 12 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On December 11, 2009, the Company, its CEO and transfer agent were named as defendants in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, by 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages in an amount greater than $15,000, punitive damages to be determined at trial, injunctive relief requiring the defendants to reissue the plaintiff’s stock without the restrictive legends, injunctive relief barring the defendants from removing the stock legends from any Seafarer stock until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, injunctive relief barring the defendants from selling their Seafarer stock, directly or indirectly, until the dispute with the plaintiffs is fully resolved, a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to have their shares reissued without the restrictive legend, such other incidental and consequential damages as may be proven at trial, costs, interest, and legal expenses allowed by law and such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company contends that the restrictive legends were either (i) not qualified for removal under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, (ii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts supporting removal of the restrictive legends, or (iii) the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the distribution was not part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. On September 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in the matter. Upon review of the facts of the case, counsel filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, in which pleading and supporting affidavit, the Company presented factual allegations that the initial investment by one of the Plaintiff’s, Micah Eldred, was made in the private company of Seafarer, Inc. on June 15, 2007 for $5,000. The Company alleged in its responsive court filing, that at the time of the investment, share rights and disbursal of such shares in the public company, Eldred was a registered and licensed broker with the NASD; any ownership interests and in this case a control position held by Eldred would have had to have been reported to overseeing authorities. On May 22, 2012, the Court held the hearing on the motion for summary judgment at which time the court heard argument on the motion. The Plaintiffs argued that as a matter of law, that they were entitled to removal of the legend under Rule 144 of the Securities Act. Seafarer and the transfer agent argued that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to removal of the restrictive legend due to the allegations and evidence that the lead Plaintiff, Eldred, was involved in an illegal distribution of the shares originally in order to avoid registration. The Court ruled in favor of the Defendants, Seafarer Exploration and the transfer agent, denying the motion for summary judgment as to removal of the restrictive legend from such shares. Such litigation continues in the discovery phase currently including requests to produce and interrogatories, but no further Court events are scheduled.

On February 24, 2011, the Company was named as defendants in Case Number 11000393CC filed in the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida, by a limited liability company. The limited liability company is claiming that the Company owes $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees under a lease agreement. The plaintiff is demanding that the court render judgment against the Company in the amount of $12,064, plus court costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 720.305(1) of the Florida Statutes costs and other relief as the court deems just and proper. Management believes that the limited liability company was paid all of the fees owed to it under the lease agreement and the Company plans to mount a vigorous defense against this claim and is currently seeking all attorney’s fees and costs for what it sees as a spurious claim. The Company has presented proof of payment for all billed liabilities and believes that full payment was made. The Company has filed and will keep pending a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the cause of action. On February 21, 2013, both parties settled the matter with neither party making any admission of liability.

On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay.

The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to the Company, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against the Company and its CEO, individually, alleging that the Company and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that the Company’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. At the time of the filing of this form 10-Q, the Company’s motions have not been set for hearing and dispositions by the court.