NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_fe_st/odd_house_hidden_money_2

Finders Keepers law? On somebody else's property? In their House? Seems like a stretch to me.

Funny thing is that I would probably share it, but not if the contractor was being such a total bitch about it. :p

Presumably they've already checked that the man who they think left it there, Peter Dunne, left no heirs?

What a weird situation...

If I were the homeowner, at this point, I'd give the contractor nothing. She offered him 10% which may be a little stingy, but the fact is, it was HERS. It wwas in HER house, on HER property and that's the bottom line.

The Finders Keepers law isn't relevant here because 1)The money was found on private property 2)The owner (which she is) IS claiming it and 3)By asking for a cut the contractor has implicitly acknowledged that it's hers in the first place.

So IMHO because he's trying to shake her down, he doesn't deserve squat. In her position I'd probably be willing to settle out of court for as much as 20% but that's only because I think that's what I'd have offered him to begin with.

It was found in the walls of the house. Because of that, it should be considered part of the house. Since the house is owned and wasn't abandoned, the contractor shouldn't have ANY claim to it.

What's next? A contractor going, "Ooooh, I found a computer. And look, I found jewelry. And a firearm. Well, it's all mine now. Finder's Keepers!"

I was totally going to make a thread about this, but I was too lazy to find an article.

Fuck the contractor.

That's like calling a plumber to get your wedding ring out of the drain, only to have him say it's his because he found it.

But neither of them are the owner of the money. The bundles were clearly marked P. Dunne and therefore belong to his descendants if he has any. Only if it is found that he does not have should the two be able to make a claim on the stash.

Finders Keepers law? On somebody else's property? In their House? Seems like a stretch to me. yep, he was there at her invitation (contract) and doing what he was supposed to do (by that contract).

Funny thing is that I would probably share it, but not if the contractor was being such a total bitch about it. :p so would I. and I would've made it clear that the split would be appropriate. 50/50 perhaps. (especially if he dropped the bill for the contract work.) :p

another case of a long time friendship/aquaintance gone sour due to money. :(

That's like calling a plumber to get your wedding ring out of the drain, only to have him say it's his because he found it.actually no. since he is there to find the ring.

it's more like you are hired to help dig a backyard pool and you find a case of gold buried there for a hundred years.

actually no. since he is there to find the ring.

it's more like you are hired to help dig a backyard pool and you find a case of gold buried there for a hundred years.

True..

So, would mineral rights apply in the situation you described? :p

True..

So, would mineral rights apply in the situation you described? :p

me? dunno really. since it's not technically the homeowners, but it's on his/her legally owned property...

why did the contractor call the owner an tell her he found money in her home?


:D

I don't understand why the contract thinks it's his to keep... If he had opened up the wall and found a nest of hornets, or a pile of rotted wood, I don't think he would have felt any responsibility to remove it without proper compensation.

I guess he could give the owner a change notice for the effort required to remove the box of money.

I think the contractor should have taken the 10 percent.

50 grand isn't too bad for breaking open a wall and pulling out a box

the money should be confiscated by local officials for presenting a fire/health hazard...

also this whole case is rather depressing :D

The problem is it's...slightly more complicated then it at first entails.

The money did not belong, initially, to this woman, nor to any of her ancestors. Let's presume she bought the house. Which means she signed a contract to purchase the house, as well as specifically enumerated property within the house (furniture, etc) as well as all fixtures, integrated appliances, etc etc.

I don't know real estate law, but I doubt that her contract stated that she purchased the house and all things, enumerated and unenumerated, within. Rather, when she bought the house, she got the land, the structure, the fixtures, and enumerated pieces of personal property therein. If her contract only said she purchased those specifically enumerated pieces of property within the house, and it didn't include these...she never purchased them, she never aquired title of these boxes of cash, because they were never listed in the contract of sale.

It also depends on who she purchased the house from. If she bought it from another perosn, not connected to the money, then even if the contract did say "and all things in the house" this still might not have covered the boxes of cash because they might not have been the previous owner's property to sell.

Same as if you agreed to purchase one car, and nothing more than the car, and all mechanisms, electronics, and other such things involved in the operation of the car, and find a diamond necklace in the glove box, it's not yours. You never contracted to purchase the necklace.

Now, if that's the case, and there is nobody who can be shown to have legitimate title...then a case can be made that they belonged to nobody. And if they belonged to nobody, then the idea that something, belonging to nobody, belongs to the first person who finds it, is not all together invalid under law.

Is it part of the house? I think a reasonable argument could be made that since significant intervention would be required to remove it, it could be likened to a hidden wall safe, or other built-in work. Example: what if the contractor had found a very expensive and handcrafted marble fireplace inside a wall? If it is part of the house, it's the owner's. Of course, this may only apply to the box, and not to the money it contains.

There could also be some sort of law that states that anything left on a property becomes the property of the new owner if the old owner doesn't come get it in a suitable amount of time.

Is it part of the house? I think a reasonable argument could be made that since significant intervention would be required to remove it, it could be likened to a hidden wall safe, or other built-in work. Example: what if the contractor had found a very expensive and handcrafted marble fireplace inside a wall? If it is part of the house, it's the owner's. Of course, this may only apply to the box, and not to the money it contains.

What you are refering to is generally refered to in the legal term as a "fixture". Which is, a thing, seperate from the house, but becomes part of the house once "fixed" to it, like a fireplace.

you'd have a hell of an argument trying to argue that a box of cash is a fixture, however.

What you are refering to is generally refered to in the legal term as a "fixture". Which is, a thing, seperate from the house, but becomes part of the house once "fixed" to it, like a fireplace.

you'd have a hell of an argument trying to argue that a box of cash is a fixture, however.

I would go with the argument that removing it would require repairing the adjoining surfaces. Which is the definition for a built-in fixture here in Quebec(if removal of the object creates a hole in the existing finish, it is considered a built-in). I would think it would depend on the definition of fixture in ....uhm... wherever this is taking place.

The problem is it's...slightly more complicated then it at first entails.

The money did not belong, initially, to this woman, nor to any of her ancestors. Let's presume she bought the house. Which means she signed a contract to purchase the house, as well as specifically enumerated property within the house (furniture, etc) as well as all fixtures, integrated appliances, etc etc.

I don't know real estate law, but I doubt that her contract stated that she purchased the house and all things, enumerated and unenumerated, within. Rather, when she bought the house, she got the land, the structure, the fixtures, and enumerated pieces of personal property therein. If her contract only said she purchased those specifically enumerated pieces of property within the house, and it didn't include these...she never purchased them, she never aquired title of these boxes of cash, because they were never listed in the contract of sale.

It also depends on who she purchased the house from. If she bought it from another perosn, not connected to the money, then even if the contract did say "and all things in the house" this still might not have covered the boxes of cash because they might not have been the previous owner's property to sell.

Same as if you agreed to purchase one car, and nothing more than the car, and all mechanisms, electronics, and other such things involved in the operation of the car, and find a diamond necklace in the glove box, it's not yours. You never contracted to purchase the necklace.

Now, if that's the case, and there is nobody who can be shown to have legitimate title...then a case can be made that they belonged to nobody. And if they belonged to nobody, then the idea that something, belonging to nobody, belongs to the first person who finds it, is not all together invalid under law.

dunno. usually, when one buys the home, all things within the home is also considered part of the sale (the "as is" terminology all sales use), wether it's listed or not.

same with the car, if you sold your car and someone finds a wad of cash under the seat cushions, I doubt you can claim it's still yours because most contracts state "as is" which would include anything found inside the purchased item.

dunno. usually, when one buys the home, all things within the home is also considered part of the sale (the "as is" terminology all sales use), wether it's listed or not.


Even if it's an "as is" sale, that does not mean that when sells a home, one sells all things within the home. Rather, even in an as is sale, when one sells a home one only sells that which he has the right to sell.

For example, let's say I'm a real estate agent, and I visit the home of a seller who is selling to a buyer. I bring my laptop and put it on the floor. The buyer then signs the contract, effectuating the sale from seller to buyer. The contract lists the sale as is, selling all things within the house.

Does tha tinclude my laptop? No, of course not. Even if the sale included everything in the house, it doesn't include my laptop, because the seller didn't own it, and therefore had no right to sell it.

Even if it's an "as is" sale, that does not mean that when sells a home, one sells all things within the home. Rather, even in an as is sale, when one sells a home one only sells that which he has the right to sell.

For example, let's say I'm a real estate agent, and I visit the home of a seller who is selling to a buyer. I bring my laptop and put it on the floor. The buyer then signs the contract, effectuating the sale from seller to buyer. The contract lists the sale as is, selling all things within the house.

Does tha tinclude my laptop? No, of course not. Even if the sale included everything in the house, it doesn't include my laptop, because the seller didn't own it, and therefore had no right to sell it.
of course not, because the laptop is not part of the house "as Is" since you 'brought it in'.

now the flip side. you buy a house fully furnished. as you move in, you see a mouse, is it still the previous owner's problem since you didn't specifically buy the mouse with the house? same if you discover a leak in the septic system that was there before you bought the home. is it the previous owner's problem to fix or yours?

of course not, because the laptop is not part of the house "as Is" since you 'brought it in'.

Not at all. "as is" means the condition it is in at the time of sale. Not at the time of the drafting of contracts, not at the time of the look over of the house. "As is" means as it is at time of sale, at the time the title transfers. In my example, the buyer purchases the house, IE signs the contract that passes title, while the real estate agent's laptop sits on the floor of the house. Which is to say, at the time the transfer of title took place, the laptop was in the home. By your argument, purchasing the house "as is" would include all things in the house at the time the sale took place and the title transfered.

It clearly does not, because if it did, that would include the laptop of the third party. And the seller can not sell what is not his. "As is" sales of homes only include those things in the home at the time of sale that the seller has the right to sell. The real estate agent's laptop was in the home at the time of sale but is not included in the sale, because the seller has not right to sell it.

now the flip side. you buy a house fully furnished. as you move in, you see a mouse, is it still the previous owner's problem since you didn't specifically buy the mouse with the house?

That's not at all a comparable example. The mouse is on my property, not the previous owner's. Why would removing a pest be the previous owner's problem? In this example it's the ownership of the house that the pest is in, not the pest itself. The house is mine now, not his. The mouse, however, is nobody's property, as it was never owned. Removal of the pest is the problem of the owner of the property that the pest is in, and that is clearly my property. Your example is flawed.

Now, if I found the mouse in my house, and it was a wild animal, could I lay claim to it? Yes, but then again, arguable, so could anyone else who happened to find it, as the mouse is unowned, it belongs to nobody. Something doesn't automatically become yours by mere virtue of being in your house.

If, however, let's say it was a pet mouse, that he accidentally left there...I'd have some difficulties arguing that it is mine now.

same if you discover a leak in the septic system that was there before you bought the home. is it the previous owner's problem to fix or yours?

A septic system is a fixture to the house, as part of its waste disposal system, and is integreated into the function of the facilities of the home. Again, not a comparable example.

The better example, perhaps, would be, as I said, is what if the owner, in moving out, accidentally left his pet mouse in a cage and, upon moving in, I find it. Is it mine now?

The better example, perhaps, would be, as I said, is what if the owner, in moving out, accidentally left his pet mouse in a cage and, upon moving in, I find it. Is it mine now?
technically... yes. you are not obligated to call the owner about his pet mouse (if you really want to keep it.)

The owner can come by and claim the mouse, but then you and he can get into a legal battle over the ownership since, once he left, anything he left in the house he relinquished ownership of and turned it over to the new owners.

technically... yes. you are not obligated to call the owner about his pet mouse (if you really want to keep it.)

The owner can come by and claim the mouse, but then you and he can get into a legal battle over the ownership since, once he left, anything he left in the house he relinquished ownership of and turned it over to the new owners.

You really sure about that? Or are you just making that up because you think it sounds right?

In fact, since this took place in ohio, let's take a look at ohio penal code:

2913.02 Theft.
(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:

(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(3) By deception;

(4) By threat;

(5) By intimidation.

(B)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of theft.



If I accidentally leave something, and you pick it up, and try to keep it from me, that's theft, because you are depriving me of my property without my consent.

You would have to argue that accidentally leaving something is an implied consent, and I really doubt the law would recognize that. So yeah, if I leave my pet mouse in my now sold home on accident, and you try to keep it from me if I try to reclaim it...that's theft.

But neither of them are the owner of the money. The bundles were clearly marked P. Dunne and therefore belong to his descendants if he has any. Only if it is found that he does not have should the two be able to make a claim on the stash.

A case could be made that P. Dunne abandoned the money in the house. Also, since the money was wrapped in newspapers from the 40's and buried in the walls, a case could be made that the money is part of the house, and when the house was sold, P. Dunne sold the rights to the money (just as he sold the rights to the house).

the money should be confiscated by local officials for presenting a fire/health hazard...

also this whole case is rather depressing :D

/me tasers Call to power for his Depression pun.

:p

In fact, wiki has an interesting little blurb on just this thing:

Treasure trove is property that consists of coins or currency hidden by the owner. To be considered treasure trove and not mislaid property, the property must have been deliberately hidden or concealed, and sufficiently long ago that the original owner can be considered dead or not discoverable. For example, under English law, 100 Roman coins found buried in a chest would be treasure trove; however, 100 Roman coins which were lost over time in a marketplace would not be treasure trove, as they were not deliberately hidden as a single hoard.

Under American common law, treasure trove belongs to the finder, unless the original owner reclaims. Some states have rejected the American common law and hold that treasure trove belongs to the owner of the property in which the treasure trove was found.

Now, anybody here have any particular idea what the law is in Ohio? Well, I found something:

The treasure trove rule received its first serious consideration by Oregon's Supreme Court in 1904 in a case involving boys who discovered thousands of dollars in gold coins hidden in metal cans while cleaning out a henhouse. Unwilling to identify coins in such circumstances as lost and seizing on the image of gold as treasure, the court awarded the coins to the boys.

. . . .

Four years later, Maine's Supreme Court completed the process of confusing the application of treasure trove law. The facts are eerily similar to the recent Idaho case: three workers jointly found gold coins while excavating on their employer's land. Although a series of English and American cases had already established a landowner's claim to buried valuables, the court awarded the coins to the finders, and for the next three decades the American rules remained in considerable confusion. During that period only a few courts opted for the treasure trove formulation; at one time or another the courts of Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin employed the rule, most recently in 1948.

So look at that, Ohio follows the common law tradition of treasure trove law, which says...yes, finders keepers.

Well gee, it looks like he has a case after all.

In fact, hell, let me do you all one better:

Neither can she prevail if the funds be treasure trove for the reason that since the time of Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505, 93 Eng. Rep. (22 King's Bench), 664, it has been the law, that the owner of the soil whereon treasure is found acquires no title or right thereto by virtue thereof, as against the finder or the true owner. That rule has been universally followed, as is displayed in Weeks v. Hackett, supra, wherein it is held in the syllabus, that:

"The owner of the soil in which treasure-trove is found acquires no title thereto by virtue of his ownership of the land."

Niederlehner v. Weatherly, 78 Ohio App. 263, 270 (Ohio Ct. App. 1946)(emphasis added)

Ohio Court of Appeals. According to Lexis, the case is still valid. So, under Ohio law..he appears to win, as, as noted "the owner of the soil in which treasure-trove is found acquires no title thereto by virtue of his ownership of the land." If this goes to court...he'll probably win.

See folks, this is what happens when you make claims asserted as facts based only on what you think the law says, and not what it actually says.

In fact, since this took place in ohio, let's take a look at ohio penal code:



If I accidentally leave something, and you pick it up, and try to keep it from me, that's theft, because you are depriving me of my property without my consent.

You would have to argue that accidentally leaving something is an implied consent, and I really doubt the law would recognize that. So yeah, if I leave my pet mouse in my now sold home on accident, and you try to keep it from me if I try to reclaim it...that's theft.

except (and this is, as I said, dependant on how the sales contract is written) "as is" can be argued to mean anything left in the home after the owner vacates it on the specified date. thus it can be argued that the pet mouse was left with the consent of the owner since it was 'turned over' to the new owner with the home.

A case could be made that P. Dunne abandoned the money in the house. Also, since the money was wrapped in newspapers from the 40's and buried in the walls, a case could be made that the money is part of the house, and when the house was sold, P. Dunne sold the rights to the money (just as he sold the rights to the house).
I'm gonna guess that Mr. Dunne died without telling anyone else about his stash, and whichever one of his dumb ass descendants got the house just sold it off.
Either that, or P Dunne just had a thing for pirates.

Even if it's an "as is" sale, that does not mean that when sells a home, one sells all things within the home. Rather, even in an as is sale, when one sells a home one only sells that which he has the right to sell.

For example, let's say I'm a real estate agent, and I visit the home of a seller who is selling to a buyer. I bring my laptop and put it on the floor. The buyer then signs the contract, effectuating the sale from seller to buyer. The contract lists the sale as is, selling all things within the house.

Does tha tinclude my laptop? No, of course not. Even if the sale included everything in the house, it doesn't include my laptop, because the seller didn't own it, and therefore had no right to sell it.

Obviously at some point though, P. Dunne, or if he passed away, an heir of his sold the house. Wouldn't that act negate any claim P. Dunne or his heirs have on this money (since they had the right to sell it)? And so whomever bought the house had the rights to it until they sold it, etc, etc, etc, until this woman bought it, correct?

except (and this is, as I said, dependant on how the sales contract is written) "as is" can be argued to mean anything left in the home after the owner vacates it on the specified date. thus it can be argued that the pet mouse was left with the consent of the owner since it was 'turned over' to the new owner with the home.

the problem is, as I noted, the forgetting of the mouse was accidental, and therefore not intended. You'd have a real time arguing that even a contract that says EVERYTHING left in the house becomes property of the new owner would include items accidentally left.

So look at that, Ohio follows the common law tradition of treasure trove law, which says...yes, finders keepers.

Well gee, it looks like he has a case after all.
For the first box, but since the home owner came back and helped get out the other three boxes, wouldn't that leave them with a 50/50 split? (Well, 62.5/37.5, since the contractor was on his lonesome when he pulled out the first box).

I say 10% is fair enough. At most 25.

the problem is, as I noted, the forgetting of the mouse was accidental, and therefore not intended. You'd have a real time arguing that even a contract that says EVERYTHING left in the house becomes property of the new owner would include items accidentally left.

Even if there is a four corners clause?

Obviously at some point though, P. Dunne, or if he passed away, an heir of his sold the house. Wouldn't that act negate any claim P. Dunne or his heirs have on this money (since they had the right to sell it)? And so whomever bought the house had the rights to it until they sold it, etc, etc, etc, until this woman bought it, correct?

Now we're getting into estate law and more complicated issues. There's a whole field of law regarding "treasure trove" law that deals with this, basically things long burried.

The general provnice is, however, that if someone deliveratly hides something, and doesn't make any effort to enform his heirs, it is questionable that title ever transferd, because if he wanted them to have it, he would have told them.

As noted, ohio law seems to suggest that in the instance of treasure trove law..."finders keepers" really is the legal standard.

of course not, because the laptop is not part of the house "as Is" since you 'brought it in'.

now the flip side. you buy a house fully furnished. as you move in, you see a mouse, is it still the previous owner's problem since you didn't specifically buy the mouse with the house? same if you discover a leak in the septic system that was there before you bought the home. is it the previous owner's problem to fix or yours?

If you buy a house and THEN discover there's a rodent, septic, or other problem, one of a few things happened. Either you didn't get an inspection, the inspector missed it (I believe if they missed it, they're liable for up to 5 years on some of that stuff), or you didn't pay attention to the inspector when he told you about the problem. And to answer your question, if it was like that when you bought it, it's your problem, not the previous owners (unless you can prove they knew about the problem, and didn't disclose it like they were required to by law).

Even if there is a four corners clause?

Buh? The four corners rule basically states that the meaning and intent of a contract must be infered by the wording and contents of the contract, without external factors influencing the interpretation.

How are you trying to apply that here?

Here is a 1969 case of the 6th circuit citing the one I just mentioned:

In Ohio, there is no statute specifically dealing with the rights of owners and finders of treasure trove, and in the absence of such a statute the common-law rule of England applies, so that "title belongs to the finder as against all the world except the true owner." Niederlehner v. Weatherly, 78 Ohio App. 263, 69 N.E. 2d 787 (1946), appeal dismissed, 146 Ohio St. 697, 67 N.E. 2d 713 (1946). The Niederlehner case held, inter alia, that the owner of real estate upon which money is found does not have title as against the finder

Cesarini v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3, 7 (D. Ohio 1969).

Now whether Ohio has enacted a statute in the last 38 years on the subject, i have no idea, but if they haven't...then Ohio law would seem clear. The mere fact that she owned the land does not give her claim on the money, and the title belongs to the finder

Buh? The four corners rule basically states that the meaning and intent of a contract must be infered by the wording and contents of the contract, without external factors influencing the interpretation.

How are you trying to apply that here?

If there is a clause, in the contract itself, saying that the contract is to be interpreted according its own words, that leaves little room for other principles of interpretation.

So, "everything in the house" would literally mean everything in the house. Not "everything except things I may have forgotten"

If there is a clause, in the contract itself, saying that the contract is to be interpreted according its own words, that leaves little room for other principles of interpretation.

So, "everything in the house" would literally mean everything in the house. Not "everything except things I may have forgotten"

perhaps, if you had such a condition, you MIGHT run into an issue there (i'd still argue implicit interpretations, while weakened, are never entirely irrelevant, but against a "plain meaning" clause you have a point).

now to find a sales contract that would actually say "everything in the house"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_fe_st/odd_house_hidden_money_2

Finders Keepers law? On somebody else's property? In their House? Seems like a stretch to me.

Funny thing is that I would probably share it, but not if the contractor was being such a total bitch about it. :p

Exactly. Just as I have "found" planet Houston, and I claim it for myself! And none of you humans can have any of it! KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

A case could be made that P. Dunne abandoned the money in the house. Also, since the money was wrapped in newspapers from the 40's and buried in the walls, a case could be made that the money is part of the house, and when the house was sold, P. Dunne sold the rights to the money (just as he sold the rights to the house).You're probably quite right there. I seem to remember that the previous owner's of my Mum's house came round a few months after they sold it and tried to claim the cooker was still there property as they hadn't explicitly sold it, and well, that they wanted it. She called her lawyer from the move who said they didn't have a leg to stand on. For the first month or so the previous owner's can reclaim any property not explicitly sold, but after that ownership transfers regardless.

But that's only English law...