Contractor found money
 

I apologize if this has already been posted, but I did a search, and couldn't come up with it sooooo

I would like your opinions on what you think about this article, and how it should be resolved. thank you
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdworld/20...r_bathroo.html

It belongs to the family of those who left the money and if not them the homeowners. Treasure laws are incredibly serious about making sure that the treasure is not owned by someone before the treasure hunter can claim legal ownership.

What do you think should be done?

Seems simple to me - she owned the house and all it's contents. That's what happens when you buy a property. Her house, her money. She was being nice by offering to share the money, but I have to agree that his response seems like a shakedown, especially when he did more damage looking for more money later (note: any attempt to find more hidden money would necessarily cause damage, although it's entirely possible that those were areas scheduled for demolition).

Also, it's customary to insert your own thoughts on the subject when starting a thread here. Why don't you tell us what you think?

What do you think should be done?

What do you think should be done?

Okay... stop that. It's annoying.

:lol: I was hoping you'd do that.

Are you guys 8?

Cumulatively, yes.

I think it would have been neighborly to split the proceeds, especially considering they were old friends.

My gut seems to think that the homeowner is legally entitled to all of it, but frankly my gut also thought those last three beers were a good idea last night, so what the hell does my gut know?

*speaking to fun police* No, officer, I was just walking home...

I tend to agree with The_Jazz - the person who owns the property should own the cash...this isn't something that was "lost". It was put purposefully within the walls - probably a hedge for someone who didn't trust the banking system. But when you purchase a house, and when you take ownership of that property, anything inside it is YOURS.

I think that morality dictates that the homeowner should try to find family/heirs to the original owner of the cash...and should probably provide a hell of a tip to the contractors. But to invoke a Treasure Trove law?

However, I'm going to have some yard work done in the next few months that will involve digging around teh foundation of my house. This case really makes me think about including a clause in any of those contracts that any found items are the sole property of the home-owner.... Hrm....

Similar things arise in contract archaeology (cultural resource management) all the time. Generally, found objects belong to the property owner, NOT the firm doing the work. I've heard of several cases where workers decided "finder's keepers" and later were pursued by the property owner in court to get back the objects they rightfully owned.

I believe the property owner is entitled to the entire amount of money, and she should only share with the contractor IF she decides to go that route. Playing "finder's keepers" is just bad business; you do the job you're being paid for and do it well, and then you're more likely to get a "tip" if something unusual like this happens anyway.

Wow, this thread has it all!

Juvenile verbal sparring. World's King being a father figure.

...

Property = dominion vs. possession = 9/10s of the law.

My idea: My plot = my shit.

Pick a saying.

sorry
 

After I posted this morning, I thought to myself , I should have told them what I thought about it. Now, I know I was right in thinking that.
I guess the reason I didn't, is because I am sort of on the fence post about it. The contractor could have not called her at all, she was at work, or away from the house, when he discovered the money. But then it would have been on his conscience.
I think the whole thing made me feel bad for a friendship that had lasted since high school, come to an end over it.
Amazing what greed can do.
If having to make a decision as to who should be the rightful owner of the money, it should be the woman. or that's my opinion. It seems as if there was enough to satisfy both of them, but evidently not??

All I could think about when reading the article:

THERE ARE NO CLEAN GETAWAYS

<IMG SRC=http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/no-county-old-men.jpg>

Fuckin' money, man.

I was reading that article the other day. I couldn't stop thinking, "Why does this handy man/ contractor/ friend think he has a right to any portion of that money?"

Sounds like a manipulative jerk that tried to lock a person into something they didn't want. Way to ruin a friendship, over nothing.

Thiw was posted in the comments section, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/eveningnews/main3617369.shtml#ccmm">here...</a>

..."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.

Under the common law (including the common law of Ohio), treasure trove belongs to the finder, unless the original owner reclaims. Some states (but not Ohio) have rejected the 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 common law rule encourages trespass.

Here, since the contractor in this case was not trespassing when he found the loot, the policy considerations that have led some courts to reject the treaure trove law would not apply. Furthermore, if simply purchasing the house was enough to aquire title, why wouldn''t everyone who has owned the house since Dunne died be entitled to a share? Why, in fact, would the hidden money stash, not go to the bank that holds the mortgage?

The Dunne heirs, if any, have the best claim, though they will have to prove that he hid it. That''s what the evidence suggests (his name was on the wrapping), but of course we can never really be sure. In any event, the entitlement runs as follows: (i) Dunne; (ii) Kitts; (iii) Reece."

It may not seem fair to those who believe a purchaser of a property who cedes the title to said property as collateral to secure a mortgage loan, is "the owner", or that the most recent purchaser also purchases all rights and liabilities associated with the property, but it seems to make sense to me.

Say you purchased a property in an estate sale, the former owner is deceased; and 18 months after your purchase, a pollutant found in drinking water wells on several nerighboring properties is traced back to a buried liquid waste pit on the property you purchased. Should liability for cleanup costs now all be on you, because you are now the owner? The defense of the estate that you purchased the property from is that it acted in good faith, not knowing that the deceased former owner was burying liquid toxins in a now covered over pit.

Are only "good", undisclosed and later discovered "things" on a property you've purchased, yours by simple discovery? Say that the damage from the toxic waste in the above example, includes injury and medical expenses of neighbors who unknowingly drank polluted well water for several years. The dollar amount of the liability exceeds the value of the estate you purchased the property from. Were those named to inherit the proceeds of the sale of the property you paid, now, instead, liable for damages, along with you, or instead of you?

There was an article? Shit, all I saw was a link and a question with no points of discussion.

As of now, I can conclude that someone found money, there is a dispute over who really owns it, and that as the supreme Ayatollah, I am entitled to a share.

It doesn't matter who is entitled to the money, after reading the article I know where the money is going to end up...with the bloody lawyers.

explain
 

when I posted the link, it is all I knew about the thing, I read the article, and wondered what you guys would think about it, I didnt know there was any more to the story. sorry

If the contractor had found mold or termite damage instead of cash, would he have been obligated to pay his share for fixing that? Buying a house is a crapshoot; you're stuck with anything bad that's found, you should have the right to anything good that's found.

I agree with Jazz - when you buy a house you own what's in it. She was paying the guy to come in and fix the house. That's like saying when you hire a plumber to fix a clogged trap and he finds the engagement ring your wife dropped several years ago he has rights to it.

Just an FYI for the way things work around here....you are supposed to post the article itself with the link....not JUST the link, thats what Mr. SelfDestruct was alluding to. Here are the rules on it http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105692

and we wonder why new people don't post here more. As a mod then should you not have explained or helped out about how we like to conduct business here? geez

The person did put there own opinion in later on down the thread.....

sorry
 

I really am sorry about this, but when I posted the link, it was all I had to the entire story, there was nothing else said about it, or at least not to my knowledge. I promise to do better in any future posts...sorry

I personally think the contractor is retarded and should have been happy with a just a taste not a full share.

I feel for the original family this money really belongs too. Either way, great score for the home owner! well whatever she has left after the lawyers.

What?!!! You can't say that! You're not part of the in crowd!!! ;)

Just kidding. Saw your not in the "what would it take" thread and couldn't resist.

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is just a lawyer's dream. This is going to get litigated to death until there's nothing left.

I'm a big believer in Karma. And the only winners are going to be the lawyers.

Sounds to me like these people were not very good friends. I would have split it 40/60 with any of my good friends. Anyone else I would have given a 5-10% tip and told them to get lost.

I think the money belongs to any direct heirs of P. Dunne, of which it appears there are none. After that, morally it is the home owners, imo.