Old and valuable items found on leased property

[tranquility]

If the items were lost (by someone other than the property owner) and not abandoned then the property owner has no better claim to them then you do. You are in possession of the items now, you did not take them from the property owner, and he can't take them from you. A property owner does not have some special 'finders-keepers' right that you don't have.

Of course if they were left there by the property owner then of course they don't belong to the tenant. If they were abandoned there by someone else before(or after) the property owner took possession of the real estate then they probably do belong to the property owner. But- if items were lost there by someone other than the property owner, it is not so clear that the items belong to the property owner anymore so than the tenant.

Quite frankly, again without research, the above rubbish pretty much comports to what the black letter law may be. I say this only to keep people from jumping in too hard without looking things up.

Info edit:
In doing a quick check of a property law casebook, I suspect ki23 is a first year law student and relating to us the cases in the "finding" chapter.

 

[justalayman]

Quite frankly, again without research, the above rubbish pretty much comports to what the black letter law may be. I say this only to keep people from jumping in too hard without looking things up.

the fact the items were discovered within the premises will be prima facia evidence of the property owners right of claim. The tenant simply has no claim to the items.

 

[tranquility]

the fact the items were discovered within the premises will be prima facia evidence of the property owners right of claim. The tenant simply has no claim to the items.

Do you have a cite for that? From the same chapter:
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman Court of Queen's bench, 1896 2 Q.B. 44

It is no doubt right, as the counsel for the defendant contended, to say that the plaintiffs must show that they had actual control over the locus in quo and the things in it; but under the circumstances, can it be said that the Minister Pool and whatever might be in that pool were not under the control of the plaintiffs.

While dicta as it was not the issue in the case, it was a part of the discussion.

Hannah v. Peel, King's Bench, 1945 K.B. 509
The owner of the property did not own (or, even know of) the unattached "found" property so the finder who possessed the land had rights against all but the true owner.

Schley v. Couch, Supreme Court of Texas, 1955, 155 Tex. 195, 284 S. W. 2d 333
(Where I think ki23 took much of his post.)

Lost property is defined as "that which the owner has involuntarily parted with through neglect, carelessness or inadvertence" Note 170 A.L.R 706...Lost property may be retained by the finder as against the owner or possessor of the premises where it is found.

On the other hand, "mislaid property is to be distinguished from lost property in that the former is property which the owner intentionally places where he can again resort to it, and then forget. Mislaid property is presumed to be left in the custody of the owner or occupier of the premises upon which it is found, and it is generally held that the right of possession to mislaid property as against all except the owner is in the owner or occupant of such premises" 170 A.L.R 707

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3096935]Do you have a cite for that? From the same chapter:
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman Court of Queen's bench, 1896 2 Q.B. 44
While dicta as it was not the issue in the case, it was a part of the discussion.

Hannah v. Peel, King's Bench, 1945 K.B. 509
The owner of the property did not own (or, even know of) the unattached "found" property so the finder who possessed the land had rights against all but the true owner.

Ok, what state has a Queen's bench and a King's bench? Damn Tory *******s.

Schley v. Couch, Supreme Court of Texas, 1955, 155 Tex. 195, 284 S. W. 2d 333
(Where I think ki23 took much of his post.)

I'll look into that one, as long as it isn't about some damn Tory *******s.

 

[tranquility]

None of them are precidential, it's just the way one Property Law casebook attempted to teach the law to law students on "findings". Better might be to look up the ALR numbers.

 

[justalayman]

While it often goes to some prior owner of the property, I have yet to see where a mere tenant legally laid claim to the found property. I never said the owner of the property was assured to be able to claim it. I did say the tenant has no claim to it though. The owners claim is rebuttable but the tenant simply has no ownership claim to something discovered within a residence they were merely renting the use of.

 

[tranquility]

For a discussion of much of the case law, but focused on MO, see:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1301597&

 

[justalayman]

For a discussion of much of the case law, but focused on MO, see:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1301597&

nice write but...


how does any of it even come close to applying to the situation at hand? For all we know, the LL knew exactly where the "found" property was? That means the tenant is attempting to steal it, like the curtains I spoke of.

How do we know the landlord hasn't mislaid the items? If so, they belong to the landlord, without question.


so, tell me again how the tenant somehow has a claim to property that we have no reason to believe the landlord didn't purchase themselves?

 

[tranquility]

nice write but...


how does any of it even come close to applying to the situation at hand? For all we know, the LL knew exactly where the "found" property was? That means the tenant is attempting to steal it, like the curtains I spoke of.

How do we know the landlord hasn't mislaid the items? If so, they belong to the landlord, without question.


so, tell me again how the tenant somehow has a claim to property that we have no reason to believe the landlord didn't purchase themselves?

Goodness, I'm trying to correct many who misstated or misapplied the law and now I'm making some claim on what the facts were? If you review my posts, all I'm claiming is that ki23 correctly stated the black letter law on the matter and that "ownership" of the property (rather than the item) is not as important as possession of the property.

Now, for the first time I give an opinion on the matter after a bit of research; IF we make up the fact that the landlord was the true owner of the item and that he "mislaid" it, I agree he is the one who is should be returned to. Otherwise, I'd say the finder and the tenant (while in this case the same person) have superior rights to the item IF it was lost to anyone including the previous owner as the finder and superior rights to all but the true owner from being the possessor of the property.

If the property was lost or was mislaid, I have no idea.

 

[ki23]

nice write but...


how does any of it even come close to applying to the situation at hand? For all we know, the LL knew exactly where the "found" property was? That means the tenant is attempting to steal it, like the curtains I spoke of.

How do we know the landlord hasn't mislaid the items? If so, they belong to the landlord, without question.


so, tell me again how the tenant somehow has a claim to property that we have no reason to believe the landlord didn't purchase themselves?

What if the landlord did not know the property was there and what if he does not claim that he knew it was there when he did not. So the tenant found the property and has possession of it, what right does the landlord have over the tenant? Do you mean to say that without exception when something is lost it belongs to the owner of the property where it was found?

 

[Zigner]

We don't don hypotheticals...do you have a real question?

 

[justalayman]

Goodness, I'm trying to correct many who misstated or misapplied the law and now I'm making some claim on what the facts were? If you review my posts, all I'm claiming is that ki23 correctly stated the black letter law on the matter and that "ownership" of the property (rather than the item) is not as important as possession of the property.

Now, for the first time I give an opinion on the matter after a bit of research; IF we make up the fact that the landlord was the purchaser of the property and that he "mislaid" it, I agree he is the one who is should be returned to. Otherwise, I'd say the finder and the tenant (while in this case the same person) have superior rights to the item IF it was lost to anyone including the previous owner as the finder and superior rights to all but the true owner from being the possessor of the property.

If the property was lost or was mislaid, I have no idea.

Ok, let's think of it this way. I purchase a bowl. I have not inspected it first hand. It comes in a box. I'm out of the country so I have it sent to my house. My friend opens the box, knowing it was sent to me, and finds a bag of marbles that I had no idea were in the bowl.

Now, based on your theory, he owns the marbles. Can you make that make sense to me?

 

[quincy]

ki23, is this from Joseph Singer's Property Law, §1.5, Notes and Questions, perhaps?

Most states have statutes on found property now, so that the old "lost, mislaid, abandoned" property disputes are not what they once were. Usually the finder must turn over the property to the police, who will return the property to the finder if no one else claims it.

It might help to see if Pennsylvania has such a statute.

 

[BL]

We have no idea unless the the poster comes back to clarify how and where these potentially valuable old papers and books were found.

It would also be interesting to know if the homeowners ever lived there and for how long they have not been living there.

Was there any other renters prior ?

Are these items the only things that were " found " , or how many other things there when the renter moved in ?

I mean if they were in the attic or basement ,or even the barn covered with dirt ,the owners most likely did not care about them ,or they were meaningless at the time and long forgotten about .

If they were found inside some sort of container/box neatly stored and in good shape , odds are the home owner may just have forgot about them during the move out.

 

[ki23]

ki23, is this from Joseph Singer's Property Law, §1.5, Notes and Questions, perhaps?

Edit to add:
Most states have statutes on lost property now, so that the old "lost, mislaid, abandonned" property disputes are not what they once were. Usually the finder must turn over the property to the police, who will return the property to the finder if no one else claims it.

It might help to see if Pennsylvania has such a statute.

I was thinking about Armory v. Delamirie when I stepped into this. I just thought the OP should know that they may have a claim.