While doing some work on a bathroom, contractor Bob Kitts, found boxes stashed in the wall containing $182,000.
But since the money is from the Depression Era, the rare bills are actually worth more, as much as half a million, according to appraisers.
But Kitts and the owner of the house, Amanda Reece are in a dispute over who gets to keep the money.
Reece offered Kitts a 10% finder's fee, but Kitts wants 40%.
The legal case here is very interesting, because the money was left in the house, does Reece, who bought the home, also get the money that was inside the home.
Or does Kitts, who found the money, deserve to keep it?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If there is a dispute, the money goes to the lawyers, usually.
There is much case law on point with this. This is what i remember about the general law. The finder of lost or abandoned property has the rights to such property unless the true owner claims it. Thus, under the general law it would be the contractors unless the owners of the house can establish that they are somehow the owners. I think the contractor has the better case. Of course these common laws can be modified by contract and thus to protect yourself you should put in contractor ripping open walls of an old house, you put it in the contract with him that anything he finds belongs to the owner of the house.
I agree with the Conch. There exists in Ohio a Finders Keepers law which states that abandoned property belongs to the party that found it, not the party that owns the land where it was found.
The best outcome of this would be if a beneficiary in the previous owner's (P. Dunne) will who was bequeathed "all other monies" comes forward as the rightful owner of the money.
The second best outcome would be if Reece would agree to the 60/40 split proposed by Kitts.
The most likely outcome is that they will fight this out in the courts until their legal fees far exceed their potential gains. In the end they will die alone, penniless and bitter.
Wow, what an interesting case! Frankly the homeowner is greedy. The equitable split would be 50/50 (she provided the location and he provided the labor for the discovery). She can't win. Either the finder's keepers rule means the contractor gets everything or the decedent's estate gets everything.
The relevant part of the Ohio Statte and Distribution law shows, there is ALWAYS an heir, if not some distant cousin then the State of Ohio itself.
(G) If there is no spouse, no children or their lineal descendants, and no parent surviving, to the brothers and sisters, whether of the whole or of the half blood of the intestate, or their lineal descendants, per stirpes;
(H) If there are no brothers or sisters or their lineal descendants, one-half to the paternal grandparents of the intestate equally, or to the survivor of them, and one-half to the maternal grandparents of the intestate equally, or to the survivor of them;
(I) If there is no paternal grandparent or no maternal grandparent, one-half to the lineal descendants of the deceased grandparents, per stirpes; if there are no such lineal descendants, then to the surviving grandparents or their lineal descendants, per stirpes; if there are no surviving grandparents or their lineal descendants, then to the next of kin of the intestate, provided there shall be no representation among such next of kin;
(J) If there are no next of kin, to stepchildren or their lineal descendants, per stirpes;
(K) If there are no stepchildren or their lineal descendants, escheat to the state.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2105.06
I am not certain that an heir to the original owner's estate can prove it is the original owner's money. In absent of proof, finders keepers
The homeowner gets the money. This is not "lost" property, where the finder gets to keep it unless the true owner materializes. This is rightly construed as "mislaid" property...where the property stays with the homeowner until (and if) the true owner can assert his claim to title. Frankly, an heir has no claim, either, as the homeowner bought the house and evertything in it---including all fixtures attached to the realty. That means the plumbing, roof, toilets insulation, and everything else in the walls.
Anonymous,
That may be what common sense would dictate, but that's not what the law states.
Conch,
The money was wrapped in a bundle with the name P. Dunne on it. P. Dunne was the previous owner of the home. The current owner says she didn't put the money there. How could it not belong to P. Dunne and therefore his heirs.
Good Job! :)
Post a Comment