Jump to content

$182k


Putty

Recommended Posts

I personally think the guy has no right to the money.. whether he found it or not. It was located on a property that the woman owns and he was just doing his job. The money belongs to the woman IMO.. he should have just taken the 10% b/c after court cost and lawyers fees he will be in the red when he loses the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found blue prints in a house that were 100 years old but no money , I found some old ass comic books,beer bottles even some old teeth....never kept anything always gave it to the owner ...unless they said I could keep it!!

That guy is a dumbass I hope he blows all his own money on court and gets nothing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think the guy has no right to the money.. whether he found it or not. It was located on a property that the woman owns and he was just doing his job. The money belongs to the woman IMO.. he should have just taken the 10% b/c after court cost and lawyers fees he will be in the red when he loses the case

That is what the typical person thinks...however, the law sees it otherwise in Ohio...

"Kitts asserts he found lost money, and court rulings in Ohio establish that a "finders keepers" law applies if there's no reason to believe any owner will reappear to claim it.""

Therefore, since the homeowner did not know it was there....the actual owner is dead, so no one technically owns it...."finders keepers" is legitimate claim. I would have taken it all....dug a huge hole in my yard and said I found it there...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what the typical person thinks...however, the law sees it otherwise in Ohio...

"Kitts asserts he found lost money, and court rulings in Ohio establish that a "finders keepers" law applies if there's no reason to believe any owner will reappear to claim it.""

Therefore, since the homeowner did not know it was there....the actual owner is dead, so no one technically owns it...."finders keepers" is legitimate claim. I would have taken it all....dug a huge hole in my yard and said I found it there...;)

I'm 99.9% sure that that law only applies in a public place. As a result if you drop a $20 bill in the Men's Room, I can claim it under the "Finder's" law. However, that is not the same situation as the person's house.

When the person purchased the house they purchased everything left in it by the prior owner. Everything from the roaches to the stack of money in its walls. The only person to possibly have a right to the money would be its original owner who left it in the wall. They have a possible claim to it, not the contractor.

Additionally, the contractor was paid to complete a task. He is being paid for that task and not to snoop around the house and find something that may or may not belong to him. That's like if you are at work at Nationwide and in the cabinet you find $10k. NO WAY that money is yours.

The guy should've taken the 10% and been happy. But greed will get you every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sure he will fight is with the fact that he had to remove the items in order to complete the renovation and removable items due to renovation are his to dispose of as he pleases.. Im not a lawyer, Im just playing devils advocate.. Im sure he will get away with it and I really dont have all that much of a problem against it mainly because its not happening to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT

240 Mo. App. 818

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant finders challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court of Schuyler County (Missouri), which found in favor of intervenor property owner in the finders' action against respondent excavator in replevin for possession of an ancient Indian canoe found embedded in the owner's property.

OVERVIEW: The finders found the canoe embedded in the soil while they were swimming in a river that ran through the property owner's land. The finders showed the canoe to the excavator, who removed it from the soil. On appeal, the court held that the trial court could only have found that the canoe was once the personal property of persons unknown and that it was by the forces of nature embedded in the soil of land of the property owner. The court noted that it was the presumption that property found embedded in the soil belonged to the owner of the property. The court indicated that the property owner claimed not only the surface of her land, but everything within the soil including the canoe that was embedded therein. The court determined that because the canoe was a part of the realty prior to its severance, the life tenant had no right to sever it, and the canoe belonged to the property owner who was the owner of the next vested estate of inheritance.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the property owner.

Wasn't able to find anything on point in the time I was willing to dedicate, but this is close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...