Charges Dismissed in Buried Treasure Case

[jeff of pa]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

You must keep in mind that these people didn't "invest hundreds of hours in research, and money in equipment, and gas, and time, and labor, in finding a cache", as you put it. The dubious ones cited in this thread were hired to do a job, not hunt treasure. If under contract to hunt, find and keep, then I would agree with you in finders-keepers. If under contract to perform any other function, be it to repair a barn or lay a driveway, then it would be wrong to keep it. Perhaps contractors of this sort could write it in to binding legal contracts that they keep what they find, and if the prospective employer doesn't agree, find a different contractor. del.

I would Agree with you DEL, Except for one thing.
I'm Not sure if it is true, But My understanding was
They were told they could have anything they find while doing
the roof.
IF I am wrong on that, then it needed to be reported
to the owner of the property.
IF I'm right, and she said that, it would be no different
then a land owner giving you permission to detect, and saying
"I Don't want any of it", OR "What you find you can have".
at that point you should have no responsibility to disclose
all your finds. even if it Morally the right thing to do
If you think the landowner may change their mind,
once they see it.

AFTER ALL a Verbal contract Should be Binding,
If it Favors the Land Owner OR the Finder.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cubfan64]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

Jeff, I live in NH and heard alot about this in the local media. My understanding from the news stories is that only after the truth came out about how the money was really found was there a claim from one of the roofers that there was a verbal agreement of some kind with the property owner that they could have anything they found.

In a situation like that, it simply becomes a matter of "he said, she said" and proving it can be near impossible unless there were credible witnesses to that agreement (and NOT any of the other roofers who were involved).

Although the charges against the men for theft were dropped, I don't think anyone has been given ownership of the money yet. There hasn't been alot on the news lately about it, so I don't know any of the real particulars since it happened.

Personally, I stand behind my analogy earlier in this thread and I think what these guys did was in fact stealing. In fact I think they knew they were stealing too, otherwise why fabricated a story about how they found it in the first place.

I guess without knowing exactly what was or was not agreed upon between the roofers and the property owner the only 3 lessons I've learned from this story are:

1. Get any agreements (however minor you may think they are) in writing.
2. If you find something valuable on another persons property and you HAVEN'T received permission, however tempting it may be, it's just not right to keep it
3. If you find something valuable on another person's property, you HAVEN'T received permission AND you decide you're just going to keep it and/or sell it - keep your mouth shut.

 

[Lcplthogersen]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I completely agree.... If the barn owner put it there then it is theft.... if he did not even know it existed keep it clear of conscience unless it is like a family airloom then it is up to the finders morals. I would have kept the loot and slept fine at night too.

 

[Badger Bart]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

One point in the Corliss/ Wenner dispute that I have not seen brought into the open is the fact that the finders voluntarily gave up posession, and along with it, ownership and any further claim, to the coins. This fact was most likely taken into consideration in the judge's decision, overtly or otherwise. The finders did what they did, and must abide with the consequences of that, regrets or not.

As far as the roofers go, taking posession of abandoned property is not theft under the law. It is done all the time. Were I in their shoes, I would file a claim for the property asap, they may still have a chance. As I see it, the game being played here is to scare the finders into giving up their claim by throwing charges at them in the hope that something sticks, and using that to separate them from their claim. There seems to be no set precedent today regarding trove, and this one may turn out to be another bench mandate. We'll have to wait until the fat lady sings.

 

[B1u3Dr4g0n1]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I wasnt there but it sounds fishy

 

[mts]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I'm gonna play the part of the "disagreeing voice" here. The owner of the shed/barn where this money was discovered, hired these guys to do a gutter and/or roofing job on property they owned. Granted it appears nobody knew the money was there, but the owner of the property it was found on must have some legal right to it no?

Supposedly the guys claim that the owner told them verbally that if they found anything, they could have it - considering these are the same guys who lied over and over about how they found it in the first place, I have my doubts as to whether anyone ever told them they could keep anything they found.

I don't personally think the analogy of being hired to find a ring and finding a cache while in the process is very valid considering these guys were not hired to "clean out the shed" or find anything, but rather to make a repair.

Being a treasure hunter at heart, I have to say had I been in their shoes, I would have of course kept my mouth tightly shut and slowly sold off the money to collectors around the country, however deep down I would have known that it wasn't my money to sell.

Let me put out a different analogy and see what you think: Suppose your grandfather hides an extremely rare coin worth $200,000 in an old bandaid tin on a top shelf in your garage. He passes away without ever telling you about it and one day you hire an electrician to do some wiring in the garage and he accidentally knocks over the tin spilling out the coin and decides to take it. Is that stealing or is it "finders keepers" and he has as much right to it as you do?

Just trying to play devil's advocate here.

I totally agree with CubFan. These guys are thieves. They probably found the money and THEN asked the old woman if they could keep anything they found. Either way they took something that they weren't entitled to. Even the example of being hired to find a ring and finding a cache doesn't float in my opinion. If I'm hired to find a ring I get paid to find a ring. If I find something else and take it then I'm a thief. Plain and simple. The money belongs to the current land owner in my opinion. I sure hope she gets it back and these guys do time for their crime.

 

[mts]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I gotta go with "finders keepers" on this one. Merely for precedence, if nothing else.

Neither the homeowner nor the contractors were aware of this cache.

If it goes in favor of the homeowner, what sort of precedence will that set?

If you invest hundreds of hours in research, and money in equipment, and gas, and time, and labor, in finding a cache, then the property owner (whoever that may be) has the right to take it? even though they had no clue about its existance?

I realize these guys had no clue and nothing invested, I'm just wondering how this decision will affect future cases of real treasure seekers.

If you spend hundreds of hours in research, money in equipment, gas, time, and labor to find a cache on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and you don't have a written agreement with the property owner that you get all or a cut of what you find, then YOU ARE A FOOL. Private property is private property and the idea that the owner has to know that something exists in order to lay claim to it is nonsense. If someone came onto your property and took 1000 pounds of gold nuggets that you didn't know were there you'd be screaming bloody murder. How could you know that you had gold on your property? How about oil? How about silver deposits? At what point do you draw the line between the requirement to be aware and the rights of the owner to actually OWN everything on that property?

If it's private property then the owner owns everything on it regardless of whether or not they are aware of it. The owner is responsible for the known and the unknown for better or for worse. Many owners end up paying good money to fix problems that they weren't aware of simply because the law says that they are responsible for whatever ends up happening on their land. If they are responsible for the things they are unaware of then they are certainly entitled to them too.

That's my two cents and it's worth exactly what you paid for it... nothing!

 

[Curtis]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

Treasure Trove law Pain and simple: if you have permission to be on the property and find something the owner does not own or know about, (being treasure (gold, silver, cash, coins) only-not coal, gas, oil, topaz, or anything else) it is yours. If you do not have permission to be on the property it is the land owners subject to the original owner’s claims. So if the stuff found was not the landowners it belongs to the finders. They should have got a lawyer right away, he would have been the one holding the money until things were settled, and had real motivation to help the finders keep it. If it were me I would have kept my mouth shut, got the lawyer’s advice and once I had it established as mine I would have given the landowner a percentage, unless they were hard cases which would have net them zero.
This reminds me of a post I saw not long ago where a famous treasure hunter let it be known he found a trunk full of money and had it in his basement…within a day or so the sheriff showed up wanting to take it to hold it for him, a mayor came too, they finally were trying to take it and he opened it up…full of worthless confederate money…he had let it be known just to prove how crooked a lot (not all) city and county officials are. I have a feeling that’s what will happen to these guys’s money…it has been appropriated and the city officials are already planning ways to spend it! They should get a lawyer and file suite for unlawful and criminal seizure!
The guys fixing the driveway made the mistake of not getting an attorney (I know they are mostly scoundrels but sometimes you really need one). Handing over the money was a big mistake, the owner of the land not giving them an adequate share was another mistake.
Current Treasure Trove Law in England says if you find something you notify the coroner of the area, you and the land owner get the cash value of it if the government museums want it…if not you and the land owner get it back and its yours.

 

[lostcauses]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

An interesting thread: A lot of this depends on the original land title and what was granted with the land. This also applies to material found on the land, and the titles and rights given down through the history of the land.
Will be interesting to see how this goes. Personally it belongs to the land owner in my opinion short of the original owners being identified.

The game the fools played, may cost the land owner and the finders all of the find.

 

[BigDan]

Interesting thread

One question. Some posts have said something to the effect, "If the land owner doesn't know it was there...it's ok to keep it, just keep your mouth shut." My question, how then, do you know the land owner doesn't know it was there?

My take on this.

Contracted to do a job, roofing, driveway, etc., you do your job and get out. You get paid for the job you did. Done. If you feel the urge to treasure hunt while doing the job, get written permission.

Metal detecting, or searching for a cache? Get property owner's permission. If you are concerned about getting rich, get it in writing. Me, I've been enjoying the old time handshakes and showing them what I find. The day comes I find something worth some money, I'll try being a "fool" and see how the handshake holds up. Reason? This is my hobby, not my profession...the day comes I have to worry about contracts and lawyers...it becomes a job. I don't want another job.

 

[mts]

Re: Interesting thread

One question. Some posts have said something to the effect, "If the land owner doesn't know it was there...it's ok to keep it, just keep your mouth shut." My question, how then, do you know the land owner doesn't know it was there?

My take on this.

Contracted to do a job, roofing, driveway, etc., you do your job and get out. You get paid for the job you did. Done. If you feel the urge to treasure hunt while doing the job, get written permission.

Metal detecting, or searching for a cache? Get property owner's permission. If you are concerned about getting rich, get it in writing. Me, I've been enjoying the old time handshakes and showing them what I find. The day comes I find something worth some money, I'll try being a "fool" and see how the handshake holds up. Reason? This is my hobby, not my profession...the day comes I have to worry about contracts and lawyers...it becomes a job. I don't want another job.

Amen! There is no way that those guys could have known that she didn't put the money there herself. And I too will be the "fool" who takes the money to the owner of the property and let them know what I've found. I'll sleep better at night than the rest of you who would take it and run. Now if I find a bunch of loot on PUBLIC property then all bets are off...

 

[ivan salis]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

bottom line whats on the landowners land is theirs * peroid -- if you find it , show it to them --hopely they will give you a cut off it -- if not thats fine --they can be a cheapskate a hole ------ then be sure to wait till after the next income tax "reporting" time then tell the irs all about your find and the fact you gave it all over to the landowner *--- if the landowner did not "declare" the "income" on their taxes --- the irs will "chat" with them about it and you can then collect your "reward" from the fine the irs will hit them with --theres rewards for turning in a tax cheat.

no law says they gotta share stuff you find on their land with you --but then the federal tax law says they gotta pay taxes and declare "income" and windfalls -- often its a big hunk of taxes on "found money" -- so cheaper to split it with you and both sides keep your mouths shut , so the tax man gets zippo*

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

HI; In Mexico it can be fairly simple. All treasures belong to the land owner. If you have an agreement it generally runs 50%, however it can be negotiated. If it is found without the owners permission to hunt - i. e. trespassing - it belongs 100% to the present land owner.

On Federal land it is the finders, and subject to the below, as all treasures are.

On All finds of Archaeological or Historical significance, the Fed gov't has first choice. If they want it, they will theoretically pay you for it, based upon an independent appraiser's estimate.

This is how it is handled practically, but do 'not' take this for conclusive legal fact. Remember they have the Napoleonic version of law down here. So it is always best for you and the land owner to play fair ball with each other. I always do since if you are into it as a business as I am, your reputation is everything. A poor reputation = no more permits or leads.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[NHBandit]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I wasnt there but it sounds fishy

You do realize this post you're replying to is FOUR years old don't you ? This section is called "Treasure In The News". I believe the intention is to have a place to discuss recent news stories, not old news... Of course I may be wrong. As long as this subject is being discussed though it's my opinion that the money in this particular case was stolen from the woman who owned the property. Her barn wasn't abandoned. It was on property she was living on. How would you feel if it happened to you on your property even if you're not the one who put it there ? My own property includes a barn that's around 200 years old. The roof needs work. If I was to hire someone to repair the roof and I saw them taking ANYTHING out of MY barn they had better be wearing a bulletproof vest... Some of you guys amaze me with your sense of right & wrong. Finding LOST treasure on public property or on private property WITH PERMISSION is what we do. Stealing it from little old ladies who don't know they have it is not.. Next you'll be saying it's ok to dig up bodies in cemetarys and take whatever jewelry you find because the person who owns it is dead.. Give me a break...

 

[ivan salis]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

whats on their land is theirs * and whats found on "privately owned" land belongs to the land owner --period --case closed -- now as a workman hired and paid to work in their property if you were to discover a item of great value and being honest turned it over to said land owner --one could hope they would have a "touch of class" and toss you a bit as a "finders reward" at least say 10% -- but nothing says they got to give you squat --- however nothing says you then can not later on after "income tax" declaration time --- tell the IRS about what you found and turned over to said landowner -- normally there is a very high tax rate on high value items (*windfall or massive amounts of sudden cash)--so normally speaking it would be much "cheaper" to give you a slice and the both of you keep yer mouths shut . and avoid the taxman but then its the land owners call --give you a little bit or uncle sam a whole lot. --their choice

if they decide to give you squat ,most likely their cheap , greedy buzzards and thus will not declare it on their taxes -- which is just fine & dandy --since the IRS pays "rewards" for folks who turn in tax cheats normally a % of the amount "recovered" and fines levied -- so you will still get a bit of action

 

[idigdirt]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

This is a nice story! I've read similar stories like this for the past 35 years. However lost in all of this is the fact that barns are an excellent hiding place for caches. Out of old newspaper files from long ago, have come numerous stories of caches found in old barns. There's money in those old barns and it's not just from the beams being sold....

 

[Frankn]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

I read the orginal post and some of the comments, but not all.
Here's my slant on this.- The money belongs to the finder unless an agreement to the contrary was made beforehand. The owner did not know it was there, so he lost nothing. That means someone else placed the money there. Probably a prior owner. Lost treasure does not pass from property owner to property owner for it is not an item mentioned in the sale! It passes from looser to finder as we all should know. If it is something like a ring with a name in it, I will try to return it even though as one of you guys mentioned, it might have been hocked and really had another owner.
Just food for thought!

​

 

[Curtis]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

Even though the "law" maybe different in someplaces, the fair thing to so its split it with the finder and the land owner 50/50--if the land owner didn't know it was there, and the finders had permission to be on the property--no matter what they were doing. This is similar to the current English law.


As for the post being old...it dosen't matter, its the principle of the thing we are talking about.

 

[Ray S ECenFL]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

Even though the "law" maybe different in someplaces, the fair thing to so its split it with the finder and the land owner 50/50--if the land owner didn't know it was there, and the finders had permission to be on the property--no matter what they were doing. This is similar to the current English law.


As for the post being old...it dosen't matter, its the principle of the thing we are talking about.

I have to agree with Curtis. A 50/50 split would be the most fair way to go. A better way would be to make the law crystal clear in such cases. That would solve the whole issue, but until that happens it makes for some fine discussion on the forum. Happy Hunting



Ray S

 

[mts]

Re: Charges Dismissed in 'Buried Treasure' Case

So if a city worker comes on my property to mark the underground power lines before I dig and he finds a gigantic gold nugget worth millions of dollars, you guys think he should have the right to take it from me? He was there legally. I didn't know the nugget was there. So by your logic it is his. Well, I disagree.

I suppose if that same city worker had found a 50 gallon drum of radioactive waste that I wouldn't be allowed to force him to take it. So as long as it's treasure then I have no rights to anything that I don't know about. But if it is hazardous or requires costly repairs, then ignorance of its presence is apparently no excuse. It's funny that I'm expected to take responsibility for the bad things that are under the ground because I "own" them. But if there is something good under the ground I have no rights unless I am privy to it being there in the first place. What a twisted argument you guys are making.