Old and valuable items found on leased property

[quincy]

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.

FYI: ki23 is not the original poster, Willly, but a responder.

 

[Willlyjo]

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.

I totally agree with you Quincy about your take on "reasonable measures". Turning the items over to the police and letting them hold it for a certain period of time before it becomes the property of the OP, would save the OP a little time trying to track down the owner of the items. It would also rule out the possibility of any successful claims being filed against the new owner for the items once the holding period elapsed.

BTW...you might want to go back and correct the spelling of "abandonned" in your posts. As one with your credentials as an author of published material, it doesn't look good.

 

[quincy]

BTW...you might want to go back and correct the spelling of "abandonned" in your posts. As one with your credentials as an author of published material, it doesn't look good.

Thanks for pointing out a spelling error. I sometimes leave them in so I don't appear too perfect.

 

[Willlyjo]

FYI: ki23 is not the original poster, Willly, but a responder.

Hmmm...I don't see the word "OP" within that particular post, Quincy. I WAS responding to ki23 and everyone else within the thread, as to my opinion regarding items that were found by the OP upon renting the premises from the property owners.

 

[Willlyjo]

Thanks for pointing out a spelling error. I sometimes leave them in so I don't appear too perfect.

You're good Quincy! or

 

[tranquility]

I totally agree with you Quincy about your take on "reasonable measures". Turning the items over to the police and letting them hold it for a certain period of time before it becomes the property of the OP, would save the OP a little time trying to track down the owner of the items. It would also rule out the possibility of any successful claims being filed against the new owner for the items once the holding period elapsed.

BTW...you might want to go back and correct the spelling of "abandonned" in your posts. As one with your credentials as an author of published material, it doesn't look good.

While some state's statutes may quiet title after a time in police custody, that does not seem the case here. Who's property it "is" does not change by.a reasonable search. Ownership rights stay the same from the moment of finding. The true owner can always challenge in this state. Have you not been paying attention? I would think that when statutes, legal reviews and case law has been provided one would at least try to understand the law on the matter before spewing rubbish.

 

[Willlyjo]

While some state's statutes may quiet title after a time in police custody, that does not seem the case here. Who's property it "is" does not change by.a reasonable search. Ownership rights stay the same from the moment of finding. The true owner can always challenge in this state. Have you not been paying attention? I would think that when statutes, legal reviews and case law has been provided one would at least try to understand the law on the matter before spewing rubbish.

Of course I've been paying attention! I merely agreed with Quincy's take that reasonable measures would include the option of taking the items to the PD. Also, I opined that after reasonable measures trying to find the owners were met with failure, I could see where it would be feasible for the OP to become new owners of the items found. Does that mean that someone can't come along and claim the items as theirs subsequent to that? No! Does that mean that if someone does come along and claim ownership to the items subsequently, they will succeed in such claim? No!!

So tell me Tran, what happens to the items found when the one who finds them (in the OP's state) can't find the owner? Does the OP simply hold the items forever, hoping someone comes along to claim them? Your terrific talent and comprehension for understanding the law regarding such matters should be able to answer my last question of this post.

 

[ki23]

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.

I would hope that the police would not venture into a civil matter and assume that any item found on a property belongs to the owner of the real estate. It is a common misconception, but the OP should know their rights.

 

[Searchertwin]

I would hope that the police would not venture into a civil matter and assume that any item found on a property belongs to the owner of the real estate. It is a common misconception, but the OP should know their rights.

I did not say police would tell you it belong to the LL.
Let me repeat:
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 answer, would be, "Did you ask the LL?
Not, "It belongs to the LL, return the item.

Let's use a little common sense here.

And you are correct in that OP should know their rights. That RIGHT is to return the items to the LL.
Plus, that is the RIGHT thing to do.

He knows it belongs to the LL.
Again, common sense, not greed, should be the factor in this case.

 

[justalayman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

 

[ki23]

I did not say police would tell you it belong to the LL.


He knows it belongs to the LL.
Again, common sense, not greed, should be the factor in this case.

If he knows it belongs to the landlord, I don't know why he would have asked the question in the first place. If he found something in the house that may have belonged to someone other than the landlord, he should know that he may not have to turn it over to the landlord. To use some of the unnecessary adjectives that have been thrown about: The mere tenant may not have to give it to the greedy landlord.

 

[BL]

If he knows it belongs to the landlord, I don't know why he would have asked the question in the first place. If he found something in the house that may have belonged to someone other than the landlord, he should know that he may not have to turn it over to the landlord. To use some of the unnecessary adjectives that have been thrown about: The mere tenant may not have to give it to the greedy landlord.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Searchertwin]

Tran, if you would stop trying to prove your right or whatever your trying to prove, and read what you yourself cited:
You cited, “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.”

The key words are, “ against all but the true owner”.

The statues that Tran has cited dealt with items belonging to an unknown person for unknown reasons.

BUT, in this case, the unknown person is very well known that it is the LL.

Tenant knows that property found in the home they are renting belongs to the LL, true owner.

I don’t care if the spiders have it spun in the web in the attic, it still belongs to the LL.

 

[Searchertwin]

If he knows it belongs to the landlord, I don't know why he would have asked the question in the first place. If he found something in the house that may have belonged to someone other than the landlord, he should know that he may not have to turn it over to the landlord. To use some of the unnecessary adjectives that have been thrown about: The mere tenant may not have to give it to the greedy landlord.

Uh oh, seems like someone has done the same thing the op is trying to do now.

You are justifying the situation to meet your wrongdoing.

You don't have to justify here at this forum, but you will in the future to the One that sits on a throne.

 

[ki23]

Tran, if you would stop trying to prove your right or whatever your trying to prove, and read what you yourself cited:
You cited, “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.”

The key words are, “ against all but the true owner”.

The statues that Tran has cited dealt with items belonging to an unknown person for unknown reasons.

BUT, in this case, the unknown person is very well known that it is the LL.

Tenant knows that property found in the home they are renting belongs to the LL, true owner.

I don’t care if the spiders have it spun in the web in the attic, it still belongs to the LL.

The true owner might not be the landlord.