A HUGE find close to home

[BioProfessor]

I didn't make this find and it wasn't made with a metal detector but it parallels some of the conversations we have had on the forum about finds and who owns them. The story is new on CNN this morning and should be worth following.

Seems a couple had a contractor do some work on their bathroom (**a person lets you metal detect their land**). In doing the work, the contractor finds about $180,000.00 in now rare bills from the 1930's (**while metal detecting, you find a hoard of coins and bills buried by the barn**). The homeowner offers the contractor a 10% finders fee. The contractor says "Finder's keepers." and hires a lawyer.

Should be interesting to find out how this turns out. Do the homeowners really own it and get to keep it? Does the contractor who found it get to keep it? Do they have to split it? Does it go back to the family who sold the house where their father lived and hide the money (money wrapped in newspaper dated during the time)?

However it turns out, it may have an impact on our hobby.

Daryl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bigcypresshunter]

I agree with those that vote for silence on the part of the contractor...Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The contractor may have helped himself to some of the cash before reporting the find. We just dont know.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[cheese]

It's the homeowner's money. The greedy contractor shouldn't get anything now that he's tried to take the money all for himself. What if you hire a plumber to repair a water line in your yard. He digs up the line and hits a vein of gold worth millions. Just becaue he found it, and you were unaware that it existed, does that mean he gets all of it?

If he had taken the money and not said anything, he'd be stealing. The homeowner may not have ever known, but the contractor would have, and would have had to live with it until he died, and then answered for it.

 

[berkshire mike]

Homeowners!!

if not whats to stop a contractor from "finding" just about anything in your house?

 

[Dman]

Daryl,
Its easy to know who will wind up with the money. The lawyers they hired will split the money.
Dman

 

[joecoin]

I think it belongs to the 1930s mint.

BDD...Kirk

I'm not so sure about this, since it is paper money printed by the BEP. The mint had nothing to do with it.

 

[Montana Jim]

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/battle-builds-over-money-found-in-wall/3190597127

There is a commercial... but the vid is cool.

 

[Glenn-RI]

This may be considered a treasure trove. Also, since the contractor was not trespassing, he may have some rights here.

Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Property law
In the common law of property, personal belongings that have left the possession of their rightful owners without having directly entered the possession of another person are deemed to be lost, mislaid, or abandoned, depending on the circumstances under which they were found by the next party to come into possession of them. The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the ancient and often archaic common law of England, they turn on fine and nuanced distinctions.

Lost property
Property is generally deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not likely to be found by the true owner. At common law, the finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any other person in the world except the true owner. See Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505 (King’s Bench, 1722).

Bear in mind that the underlying policy goals to these distinctions are to (hopefully) see that the property is returned to its true original owner, or "title owner." Most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes requiring that the finder of lost property must turn it in to the proper authorities; if the true owner does not arrive to claim the property within a certain period of time, the property is returned to the finder as their own.[citation needed] In Britain, many public businesses have a lost property desk, which in the United States would be called a lost and found.

There are a litany of often confusing common law exceptions to the rule that the first finder of lost property has a superior claim of right over any other person in the world except the true original owner. For example, as a general exception, trespassers will usually lose superior claim to any lost property they find in the course of their trespassing to the respective landowner. As a corollary to this exception, landowners have superior claim over all finds made within the non-public areas of their property. For example, if a customer finds lost property in the public area of a store, the customer has superior claim to the lost property over that of the store-owner, but if the customer finds the lost property in the non-public area of that store, such in an area marked "Employees Only," the store-owner will have superior claim, as the customer was trespassing when he found it. The status of finders as employees or tenants of the landowner complicates matters, because employees and tenants have legitimate access to non-public areas of a landowner's property that others would not, without trespassing. Employees and tenants, however, still usually lose superior claim over lost property to their employers or landlords, if the property is found within the scope of their employment, or outside the actual leased area, respectively. For example, if the lost property is found by a tenant inside the walls of their leasehold, or by an employee embedded within the soil of an estate owned by their employer, the landowner (as employer or landlord) of the property where it was found usually has a superior claim of right over that of the finder. However, this is not always the case, as a long-term tenant who finds lost property within the leased area of his leasehold may have a superior claim over that of his landlord (especially if the landlord has never been to property). While employers usually have a superior claim over lost property found by their employees, exceptions to this exists as well, as modern law sometimes grants the employee superior claim if turning over lost property to their employer is not part of their job description (such as if the employee is an interior decorator).[citations needed]


Mislaid property
Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid (some courts refer to it as misplaced) if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. The finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner never shows up, the property becomes that of the owner of the premises. See McAvoy v. Medina, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 548, (1866).


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. These courts reason that the American common law rule encourages trespass.
Under the traditional English common law, treasure trove belongs to the Crown, though the finder is paid a reward.


Abandoned property
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies.(October 2007)

Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that the true owner has no intention of returning to claim the item. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property — usually cars and wrecked ships and aircraft — become the property of the state.

 

[ivan salis]

either treasure trove (thus the land owners) or mislaid -- thus the heirs to the original owner --- in my veiw---- for the contractor if anything a 10 % finders fee at best if anything at all -- us laws vary from the old english laws because in england all treasure troves belong to the crown with the finder getting a cut --- if the us govt got all treasure with finders getting a cut --it could be seen as the GOVT encourging tresspass onto private land by folks seeking treasure troves to find thus violating "private land owners rights" --- thus the say the trove belongs to the land owner --- to not support the tresspassing on private lands by treasure hunter by "reewarding" them for doing so --

 

[cosmic]

Its the homeowners.. Also they should also sue the contractor for malicious litigation..

 

[Glenn-RI]

Even though it's from Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure what's stated here is about the same as law books say.

Glenn

 

[Skrimpy]

I don't know if it was already stated and I didn't have time to read the full thread. I was under the impression that MOST treasure trove laws on found caches such as this state that the cache first belongs to the heirs of the person that hid it, IF they can be found. It's up to the homeowner to make a reasonable effort to find them and return the money. At that point, if there are no heirs, or the "reasonable" effort has been made, it belongs to the current property owner. In addition, it is not taxable until it is liquidated and can be considered "income". At that point I assume the gov't will step in and say that because it is "found", or "treasure", and if it is a significant amount of money that either: A: You owe us 40-60%, or B: We are taking it and YOU get a finders fee of 10-15%, because they are oh so nice.

The contractor doesn't have a leg to stand on. He is wasting effort, time, and money trying to keep the stuff. He WILL loose the suit and have to pay the court fees as well as legal fees incurred by himself and the homeowner. What a moron.

 

[Glenn-RI]

Here's a similar case in Idaho that went to the land owner.

It may seem strange to talk about buried treasure in an age of computer banking, but Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner might disagree.

While building a driveway on Wenner's ranch in 1996, construction worker Gregory Corliss found a jar of 96 gold coins. The coins, dated between 1857 and 1914, were rumoured to be worth up to $1 million. Corliss handed the jar to his boss, who gave it to Wenner. Corliss later sued Wenner for the coins.

A three-judge panel of the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that Corliss wasn't entitled to the coins. The state is not one "that accepts the finders-keepers rule, also known as treasure trove."

An Ontario court would likely have also ruled that Corliss couldn't keep the coins, says University of Toronto property law professor Jim Phillips. "In some cases, the occupier of the land is considered to have a better claim than the finder."

Not only did the land belong to Wenner, but Corliss was working for Wenner when he found the coins. "If you find something in the course of your employment, the title goes to the employer," Phillips says.

Buried gold conjures up images of pirates on the high seas. Pirates don't often hit the headlines, but a sunken ship can still pose a quandary. Take the shipwreck discovered off the coast in Delaware in 2004. It was believed to be from the early days of colonial America.

With no law to prevent them, beachgoers helped themselves to pottery that had washed ashore from the ship. The next year, the government enacted a law that the contents of historic shipwrecks in Delaware waters belong to the state.

So when it comes to lost "movable" property - like cash or pottery or a jar of coffee beans - the law isn't really "finders keepers, losers weepers." It's more like "finders may become keepers but losers still have the best claim, unless they've abandoned the item."

Not exactly a snappy saying, but a more accurate one.

 

[LadyDigger]

I agree to the money belonging to the homeowner....and it was generous of the homeowner of offering 10% for the honesty of the contractor informing them of the find.

My sis lives in Parker, Co....her husband being in the construction business...they purchased a new home being built in that area. About a year after moving in, they hired someone to come in and clean the air ducts out...the contractor found lots of dirt and such in the ducts (how it got there, no one seems to know..) anyhow...while he was cleaning the ducts, he found 4 very old coins in the dirt that laid in the ducts. They were in the 1880-1890 range.

My sister told me of the finds and said because the contractor was honest with her and her husband, they gave him 2 and they kept two...but rightfully, it belonged to them....and to this day...they just sit in (oops, can't give you the location....)...anyways...I thought that was pretty nice of my sis and bro in law to give him two of them. She said it just worked out well, as she has two kids as well as the contractor!!!

And like arch. digs that were done on my hubby's property...ALL the artifacts found on the property (which this small portion of land is all that is left from his direct ancestors....)....but not all the items found where in relation to his families lineage....majority dated before and during the time of the Lost Colony...but because hubby owns the land, they are all his property and he decides what is to be done with them and no one else. The Archies had the privilage of recovering the history and getting their names in the history books and trying to find the story behind the Lost Colony and Croatain Indians. Nor can they illegally make copies (i.e., the 10K gold Signet Ring that has been traced to an Abraham Kendall)...of any artifact without the written permission of my hubby, regardless if these artifacts are being curated by someone else. Dr. Phelps tried to do that...it did not pass!

So, the money does belong to the homeowners and the contractor messed things up for himself.

Now, being the person that I am....I would try to locate descendants of the P. Dunne....(wonder if he is the brother or son to my great great grandfather, Owen Dunne? Hmmmm?  )...but I would try to locate the descendants, do history of the previous home owner, when they lived there...maybe he hid the money and his widow was none the wiser to it...or maybe she passed on before him...so many reasons how and why that money was there...

But I guess I tend to be different...I tell of all my finds and if I can keep them, great...if not, no biggy to me...I just love finding the history and it's not about the money honey...it's about the experience and the thrill of the hunt...guess that is why I'm so into Pipsico...the history yet to be uncovered!

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I think it belongs to the 1930s mint.

BDD...Kirk

I'm not so sure about this, since it is paper money printed by the BEP. The mint had nothing to do with it.

Of course not. This is just another Kirkism.

 

[srcdco]

Earlier, I posted to this topic and included a link to the story from the Cleveland newspaper. Apparently, few people read all three pages of the article as people are still saying that the heirs need to be found. The story states that the original owner was never married and had no children, therefore there are no heirs. That should simplify things considerably.

 

[LadyDigger]

Earlier, I posted to this topic and included a link to the story from the Cleveland newspaper. Apparently, few people read all three pages of the article as people are still saying that the heirs need to be found. The story states that the original owner was never married and had no children, therefore there are no heirs. That should simplify things considerably.

If he was never married nor had any kids...then any siblings alive...if they are...are entitled to take claim...as next of kin. If not, nieces and nephews would come next in line....but they also have to prove their kinship. But if nothing comes of it...it belongs to the homeowner.

 

[ivan salis]

heir's are the next "blood" kin --- it can go as long as the blood line is proved --- no wife or kids -- then his mom or dad if not them then his brother or sister or thier off spring (neices and nephews) --- if no brothers or sisters then his uncle or aunt , and so forth. as long as the blood line is proved their "legal" heirs

 

[QUICKSILVER (appletree)]

Its for damn sure there is no finders keepers in someones house, the owners offered 10% he should have taken it, now he will get nothing, the job for him is probably null-n-void to, they get the cash, then find out who owned the house in that time frame, then attempt relative search, and go from there.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The lawyers are the ones who are going to end up with the majority of the money.

Just me, but if it had been my home, I would have offered the contractor more then 10%, at least 20-25%, home owner would have got nothing and knew nothing if the contractor had kept quite. Home owner will end up spending a lot more then 25% on lawyer fees.

 

[Skrimpy]

Ivan Salis,
It depends on the relation in some states. I think here in NY you have to be a direct line relative or closer than a 3rd degree relation to be considered an heir (ie closer than 1st cousins three times removed, 2nd cousins twice removed, and/or 3rd cousins).

Treasure_Hunter
I think the one who pays the lawyers in a civil case also depends on where you are. Some places the loser pays the lawyers and the court fees because the person who rightfully "owns" the property in question wouldn't be paying the lawyers bills had it not been for the person in the wrong. The homeowner in this case may not pay the lawyers. The contractor may pay for all of it.