"Finders, Keepers" For Hidden Treasure?
By Cynthia Bowers
Amanda Reece planned to sink money into her nearly 90-year-old house, not pull money out. So, imagine her surprise when her contractor, Bob Kitts, called to say he found a hidden treasure inside the bathroom wall. "I opened up one of the envelopes, tore open the corner and there's a $50 bill. I thought I was going to pass out," Kitts said. The total? $182,000 – much of which was in rare bills dating from 1929.
Reece and Kitts traced the home's Depression-era ownership to a businessperson named Peter Dunne. The money bundles that were found had "P. Dunne" written on them, but had no sign of its origin. Dunne seemingly died unmarried and childless, leaving behind a mystery -- a fortune that would be worth an inflation-adjusted $2.7 million in today's money.
Reece and Kitts celebrated their incredible luck, but the party did not last long. Reece says she offered Kitts a 10 percent finder's fee. He says she offered to split it and then backed out. Now the two speak only through their attorneys. Unless the two sides settle, a judge or jury will need to decide whether the money was, in a legal sense, lost or mislaid. Kitts asserts he found lost money, and court rulings in Ohio establish that treasure trove's "finders keepers" law does indeed apply to something that was lost, if there's no reason to believe any owner will reappear to claim it.
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you think the treasure trove was abandoned, lost, or mislaid? Why? What are the implications of this determination (for example, if you think the property was abandoned, what does this mean for the finder?)?
2. Whom do you think legally is entitled to the money? Explain your answer.
3. From an ethical standpoint, do you agree that "the holder must make a good-faith effort" to find the property's owner or should it truly be "finders keepers, losers weepers"? Why?
1) The treasure trove was mislaid according to me. Peter Dunne, the owner of the money had stored the treasure. However, he may have forgotten the location of the treasure completely. This means that the finder , in this case Kitts and Reece own the treasure now as per the " finders keepers" law.
2) Reece is legally entitled to the money. The reason being, she owns the house where the treasure has been found.
3) The former is ethical, i.e. "the holder must make a good-faith effort" to find the property's owner . Peter Dunne's relatives must be tracked down and the treasure must be given to them. As the money is the wealth of Peter Dunne and it is only ethical that his relatives or near and dear ones reap it's benefits.
"Finders, Keepers" For Hidden Treasure? By Cynthia Bowers Amanda Reece planned to sink money into her...
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...