Old and valuable items found on leased property

[Banned_Princess]

I am going to agree that we need specifics of this event, and we should get them before voting whether the tenant does or does not have a claim to the unspecified, potentially valuable whatever it is.

 

[tranquility]

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, 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.

From the footnotes of:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. $7,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY. 742 A.2d 711 (1999)
(The case had to do with if a police officer can gain ownership from finding something.)

4. It is well settled that in Pennsylvania a finder of lost property has a valid claim against all but the true owner. Hamaker v. Blanchard, 90 Pa. 377 (1879). Property is lost when the owner involuntarily parts with it through carelessness, negligence, or inadvertence. Id. Property is abandoned where the owner voluntarily and intentionally relinquishes all rights to it. Pocono Springs Civic Association, Inc. v. MacKenzie,446 Pa.Super. 445, 667 A.2d 233 (1995).

 

[Mass_Shyster]

This is bringing back bad memories.....

How old are the papers? (treasure trove?)

Were the papers lost, mislaid, or abandoned? Either way, unless the landlord is the true owner, I don't think landlord has any rights to it (jus terti).

I'm going back to sleep. I don't remember anything more of this, except there was a case where a soldier found a broach. I don't remember who ended up with it.

It wasn't on the Bar, so I didn't review it.

 

[quincy]

Right, tranquility. A finder can have a valid claim to found property against all but the true owner of the property.

And to find the true owner, the finder generally is expected to turn the found property over to the police, who will release the property to the finder if the true owner does not claim it (or has intentionally abandoned it) within a certain number of days.

Statutes now replace some of the previous uncertainty as to what to do with found property and there is less uncertainty as to the ownership of found property.

The very first reply to 3junebugs by Ozark is the correct response based on the information provided. 3junebugs cannot legally sell the old papers and books found in the rental home unless or until the true owner relinguishes ownership or does not step forward in time to claim ownership.

 

[tranquility]

Right, tranquility. A finder can have a valid claim to found property against all but the true owner of the property.

And to find the true owner, the finder generally is expected to turn the found property over to the police, who will release the property to the finder if the true owner does not claim it (or has intentionally abandonned it) within a certain number of days.

Statutes now replace some of the previous uncertainty as to the ownership of found property. It is often no longer a dispute where "finders keepers" is an element.

And, yet, the case itself discussed:

Booher argues that the decision in Conemaugh Township should be reversed, clarified or limited to the facts of that case, because it eliminates the distinction made in the Escheat Act between lost and abandoned property by treating money found by a police officer as lost if claimed by another, but as abandoned if claimed by the officer. The trial court opined that the evidence indicated that the money in question was either lost or abandoned property, but the distinction was not relevant to its decision in this matter. We agree.

In Conemaugh Township, a police officer found $20,000 in cash on a roadside during a routine traffic stop. The common pleas court rejected testimony by the subject of the traffic stop as not credible and declared the police officer to be its rightful owner. The motorist appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not finding that he had lost the cash and was its rightful owner. The Conemaugh Township court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to direct the actions necessary to effect an escheat of the funds to the State Treasurer.
In reaching its decision, the Conemaugh Township court first observed that neither Carr nor Walker fully examined the public policy implications of their result.5 The Conemaugh Township court next noted that "[a]nything that clearly tends to injure the public confidence in the purity of the administration of the law indisputably offends public policy." Id. at 994 (citation omitted). The court reviewed the great responsibility vested in municipal police officers and the fact that the law requires them to adhere to standards higher than those in many other occupations. Finally, the court concluded that allowing police to claim property found in the course of their official functions creates an obvious conflict with these duties, which could erode essential public trust. For these reasons, the Conemaugh Township court held that a police officer cannot claim ownership of property found during the performance of his official duties.

The statues codify the cases in most instances, they don't always make up new law. However, even with THIS state's statutes, a determination still has to be made between lost or abandoned.

 

[quincy]

Well, sure, there are certainly discussions to be had on lost, mislaid and abandoned property, but the answer to the question posed by 3junebugs was, based on the limited amount of information provided, correctly answered by Ozark.

Right now, based on the limited amount of information provided by 3junebugs, there is no real need to get into whether the property was lost, mislaid or abandoned. The property will become 3junebugs' property if the true owner does not claim it.

Laws and case law may need to be reviewed in the future, should a dispute arise over who the true owner is. But right now, 3junebugs cannot sell the property because she is only a finder of the property and not the true owner.

 

[tranquility]

Well, sure, there are certainly discussions to be had on lost, mislaid and abandonned property, but the answer to the question posed by 3junebugs was, based on the limited amount of information provided, correctly answered by Ozark.

Right now, based on the limited amount of information provided by 3junebugs, there is no real need to get into whether the property was lost, mislaid or abandonned. The property will become 3junebugs' property if the true owner does not claim it.

Laws and case law may need to be reviewed in the future, should a dispute arise over who the true owner is. But right now, 3junebugs cannot sell the property because she is only a finder of the property and not the true owner.

From the escheat statute.

"PROPERTY" shall include all real and personal property, tangible or intangible, all
legal and equitable interests therein, together with any income, accretions, or profits
thereof and thereon, and all other rights toproperty, subject to all legal demands on
the same. The term shall not include property deemed lost at common law.

Where will I find the turning over of lost property requirement?

 

[quincy]

You can probably find it in the Pennsylvania statute I mentioned earlier which, if you really want to look stuff up, would be a good thing to look up. Maybe try Pa Con Stat §3924?

I don't know, tranquility, what you are wanting here. If you want to say Ozark is wrong based on what little information we have been given, and if you want to say that 3junebugs can sell the property she found, go ahead.

 

[tranquility]

You can probably find it in the Pennsylvania statute I mentioned earlier which, if you really want to look stuff up, would be a good thing to look up. Maybe try Pa Con Stat §3924?

I don't know, tranquility, what you are wanting here. If you want to say Ozark is wrong based on what little information we have been given, and if you want to say that 3junebugs can sell the property she found, go ahead.

I'm merely pointing out the law rather than making things up.

And, while I don't think that statue would apply to our facts, I don't see the turn over to the police portion of the statute if it did apply.

 

[quincy]

About your veiled insult about "pointing out the law rather than making things up:" If you have some sort of a beef with me, tranquility, take it to Private Message and don't clog the thread.

18 Pa Con Stat §3924, Theft of Property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake:

"A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identification of the recipient, is guilty of theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have it."

For the purposes of this statute, "reasonable meaures" can be seen as turning the found property over to the police.

 

[tranquility]

For the purposes of this statute, "reasonable meaures" can be seen as turning the found property over to the police.

Or, as in the case cited, the officer:

On April 10, 1998, while on duty, Booher found $7,000 in cash in the middle of Belleauwood Boulevard in the Borough of Trafford. Booher waited in the area for approximately ten minutes, but did not notice anyone that might be connected with the money or any form of criminal activity. Booher returned to the police department and placed the money in a locked evidence drawer. He went back to the scene but saw nothing that would enable him to determine the owner of the money.

Some states require, under statute, to turn the money over to authorities under criminal laws. The state under discussion may not. I say may because such statues can be well hidden in many areas and I have not done an exhaustive search. But, everything I read seems to indicate they are not there in this state other than in the escheat statutes that don't apply to "lost"...um...stuff. (As by definition it would not be "property" under those statutes.)

I have no problem with any person here in any way. I will continue to state when I believe them to be in error.

 

[Searchertwin]

This is very simple to figure out.

As stated, "And to find the true owner'

Op KNOWS who the owner is.
Op need to contact him and give back the items.

First thing the police is going to ask, "Do you any idea who this belongs to?
They reply, " We rent, could belong to the LL".
What do you think police will tell them at this point?

The ONLY way that anyone can keep items in a house is when you buy the house, and not rent. Than all that is yours, lock, stock and barrel.

 

[tranquility]

This is very simple to figure out.

As stated, "And to find the true owner'

Op KNOWS who the owner is.
Op need to contact him and give back the items.

First thing the police is going to ask, "Do you any idea who this belongs to?
They reply, " We rent, could belong to the LL".
What do you think police will tell them at this point?

The ONLY way that anyone can keep items in a house is when you buy the house, and not rent. Than all that is yours, lock, stock and barrel.

None of this is the case. The issue would be unchanged if the house was purchased. The possessor of the property (as in real estate) is the one who would gain some rights in certain situations. We don't have any knowledge as to if the owner of the property was the owner of the items or knowledge of where the items were found to indicate such. (Say, in the attic, behind a wall, buried in a box, wherever. Besides, what "lost" property is depends on many things.) The only thing that may be applicable is that as the value of the property increases, the definition of what effort is reasonable increases. It is not going to be a crime for the waste disposal company to recycle plastic bottles tossed in the trash without trying to find the owner. That might change if it is an Ipad. It would certainly change if it were a dufflebag full of money.

Let's make up facts for a moment and pretend the OP found a bunch of old papers in a dusty corner of the attic, basement or room. These papers were known to be there by the "true owner" and they thought nothing of them and, rather than cleaning them up and tossing them in the trash, they just left them there intentionally or inadvertently by not doing a good search for trash before leaving. But, if he would have found them, he would have tossed them in the trash because they were just old papers to them. What should the OP do?

Here's what I might do, I'd toss them in the trash. If I thought them valuable, or just cool (bitchen, neato, gnarly, phat whatever the cool kids are saying) I might call the previous possessor of the property and ask if I could keep them. Do you think the previous possessor of the property (Who was probably the "true owner" of the items.) is going to say "sure" or "My gosh! I had no idea where those valuable papers I left in in the corner of the garage were, please return them immediately."? I know my guess and what the OP should do if this just wasn't a homework problem.

 

[quincy]

. . . . Let's make up facts for a moment and pretend. . . .

Let's not.

 

[Willlyjo]

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.

The first thing you should do is contact the property owner and see if the items belong to him. If the LL doesn't claim them, he might be able to give you information as to previous tenants who might own the items in your possession. After a reasonable search without results, I would think you could become owners without the threat of any claims against you for the property. Of course this is an opinion.