A contractor who helped discover bundles of Depression-era U.S. currency totaling $182,000 hidden behind bathroom walls said the homeowner should turn the money over to him or at least share it…Kitts said his lawyer has drafted a lawsuit that he hopes will force Amanda Reece to turn over the money she has kept.
Most of the currency, issued in 1927 and 1929, is in good condition, and some of the bills are so rare that one currency appraiser valued the treasure at up to $500,000.
Kitts was hired to renovate Reece’s bathroom and found the money hidden in the wall – probably by the original home owner, Peter Dunne.
John Chambers, an attorney for Reece, said Kitts rejected his client’s offer of a 10 percent finder’s fee and demanded 40 percent of the small fortune. Reece has no intention of backing down in the face of what she considers a shakedown, Chambers said.
Dunne died years ago – unmarried and childless.
Don’t forget, the reason the contractor was there and opened the wall and found the money was because the HOMEOWNER hired him to do it. To say ‘if he hadn’t opened the wall they wouldn’t have found it’ is not a valid argument. The homeowner was opening the wall, she just hired somebody else to swing the sledge hammer. It was the HOMEOWNER’s actions that brought about the discovery – the decision to renovate the house and tear down walls.
To those who think that it “clearly” belongs to Reece. That is NOT the law in the State of Ohio or elsewhere, unless Mr. Dunne “forgot” that he hid a fortune in his wall.
Under Ohio law (as elsewhere), the law is that the finder of gold, silver, or the paper representation thereof (i.e. money) that has been hidden by its true owner (here Mr. Dunne) takes title to that property, or at least takes title over all others except for Mr. Dunne’s heirs (and I hope for everyone’s sake that the “finders” did some investigation to try to find those heirs, otherwise they could be looking at felony conversion charges). That is true even if the money was found hidden in the walls of a house owned by another. That makes sense, because if the mere purchase of the house could transfer ownership, then whoever bought the house immediately after Dunne died (which was not Reece) would be the owner. Further, this law is especially clear where the “finder” is an employee of the homeowner, the reason being that this demonstrates that the finder was rightfully on the property (i.e. is not a tresspasser). So, if Dunne hid the money and died still knowing exactly where it was hidden, the money now belongs to the contractor. Counter-intuitive, maybe, but it is still the law. End of story.
If, on the other hand, if Reece can convince the Court that Dunne forgot where he left the money (a tough proof, since he is dead), then the money will be considered to be “mislaid” instead of “treasure trove,” and Reece will have the stronger claim to it under the law.
Bottom line, whatever you think is “fair” is irrelevant. There is abundant law on this point, and, as the law professor above mentioned, the law does NOT clearly favor of the homeowner. If the parties don’t settle, both sides face real risk of getting zero.
Youareallwrong is allwrong but makes an imaginative argument. That doesn’t make it a winning argument. Unfortunately there are attorneys who will take on a wrong headed cases like this because there is a bunch of money for them if they can sell some far fetched reading of the law, or even make up some law that doesn’t exist. Such lawyers should be disciplined because they scandalize the profession and diminish public respect for the law. I hope the jerk who took this case gets suspended, and at least is made to pay the property owner’s expenses of the suit.
he bought the money when he bought the house the money is his. plain as day, that clear.
LawDog,
I find it interesting that you accuse me of resorting to a “far fetched reading of the law,” and/or “mak[ing] up law,” but you cite to no authority favoring your interpretation. So, for your edificiation, here are a few recent decisions in which judges have discussed the law of treasure trove:
Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, 534 N.W.2d 400, 406 (Iowa 1995)
(“Treasure trove consists of coins or currency concealed by the owner . . . . It includes an element of antiquity …. To be classified as treasure trove, the property must have been hidden or concealed for such a length of time that the owner is probably dead or undiscoverable . . . . Treasure trove belongs to the finder as against all but the true owner.”)
Baker v. City of West Carrollton, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7826 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
(” A finder who takes possession of “abandoned property” acquires absolute title at common law. A finder of a lost article, although he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, has a prior claim thereto as against everyone except the actual owner. This is the common law rule which applies in Ohio, since there is no Ohio statute specifically dealing with the rights of owners and finders of treasure trove. This rule is practically absolute and is not affected by special circumstances of the character of the thing found, the place of finding, or the relation of the finder to the third person . . . . And this is the law even though the finder is an employee of the owner or proprietor of the premises wherein or wherever the property is found.”)
Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 463 (Ark. 2001)
(“According to the common law, treasure trove is any gold or silver in coin, plate, or bullion, whose owner is unknown, found concealed in the earth or in a house or other private place, but not lying on the ground . . . . Property considered as treasure trove has included gold or silver coin, and its paper representatives, buried in the earth or hidden in some other private place, including a mattress, a cabinet sink, and a piano. It is not essential to its character as treasure trove that the thing shall have been hidden in the ground; it is sufficient if it is found concealed in other articles, such as bureaus, safes, or machinery. While, strictly speaking, treasure trove is gold or silver, it has been held to include the paper representatives thereof, especially where found hidden with those precious metals . . . . Treasure trove carries with it the thought of antiquity; to be classed as treasure trove, the treasure must have been hidden or concealed so long as to indicate that the owner is probably dead or unknown….Title to treasure trove belongs to the finder, against all the world except the true owner.”)
Franks v. Pritchett, 88 Ark. App. 243, 247 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004)
(“Treasure trove is money, whose owner is unknown, found concealed in the earth or in a house or other private place, but not lying on the ground . . . . To be classified as treasure trove, the money must have been hidden or concealed so long as to indicate that the owner is probably dead or unknown. Title to treasure trove belongs to the finder, against all the world except the true owner.”)
Furthermore, although some modern courts (two courts, both in North Carolina as best I can tell) have declined to follow the common law rule, that was because in those cases (i) there was no evidence that any court in that state had ever adopted the common law rule in the first place; and (ii) that facts in those cases involved trepassers who dug up property buried on the land of another. So, the courts thought that applying the rule would encourage trespass.
None of those things are true here. Many Ohio courts have recognized that Ohio follows the common law, at least as recently as 1986. Further, Kitts was not tresspassing, so the policy considerations that motivated the North Carolina decisions have no applicability here.
So, Reece is not going to be asking the Court to “not adopt” the common law rule, but, instead, not to “apply” what is undisputedly the law of the State of Ohio. And that, my friend, will not be an easy road. I am NOT claiming that it will be impossible for her to prevail, and there will undoubtedly be lots of facts to sort out (how much did he find alone, do they have to share what they found after she came home, etc.), but if Kitts loses outright I would be surprised.
Please provide me with cites to any cases that you are aware of supporting your view of the law.
The landowner’s claim to the property is above that of the finder.
The law continues past the portion already cited stating the finders rights.
The following excerpt from blsa.uchicago.edu
A. By Find
o The finder of a lost object has a superior claim to anyone but the true owner or a prior possessor
o Categories of found property, according to the presumed intentions of the owner:
Abandoned property – When the owner intentionally & voluntarily relinquishes all right, title, & interest in it, the 1st person to find the property has title to it, even against the original owner
Lost property – When the owner unintentionally & involuntarily parts with it through neglect/inadvertence and doesn’t know where it is, the finder has rights to the property against everyone except the owner
Mislaid property – When the owner voluntarily puts it in a particular place, intending to come back for it, but then forgets where it is
Lost vs. Mislaid can be in the eye of the beholder
1. Rights of Finders Against Original Owners
General rule: “owners keepers, finders weepers”, unless the property was abandoned
Law seeks to encourage the owner’s effort to acquire property, not the finder’s minimal efforts
Rule provides security of title and protects against thieves pretending to be finders
2. Rights of Finders Against 3rd Persons
Relative to 3rd parties, the 1st finder has superior claim to a found object
Armory v. Delamirie (England 1722)
• Holding: The finder of a lost object has a superior claim to anyone but the true owner
• Court’s reasoning:
o Minimizes disputes
o Gives incentives to finders to do socially good thing of turning in property
o Easier for owner to find 1st finder than subsequent finders
3. Rights of Finder Against Landowner
2 competing lines of authority: 1) giving title to finder (Armory); 2) giving title to landowner (Ratione soli)
General trend is giving the landowner a superior claim over the finder
Key factors:
• Location of object: Objects found within a house or embedded in the soil on private land are awarded to the landowner, not the finder
• Status of finder:
o If the finder is a lawful occupant (e.g. tenant), he may have rights to the found object
o Landowner’s claims generally prevail over those of employees, people on land for a special purpose (e.g. mailman), or trespassers
“The “love” of money is the root of all evil. Let the Lord work it out since it is obvious that it can’t be done by the two parties involved.