Finders Flashcards
Danny finds a valuable watch in the city park. He takes it home, places an announcement in the local newspaper disclosing his find, and after a few days he begins to wear the watch. Three months later Owen, the owner of the watch, contacts Danny and requests its return. When Owen requests his watch, Danny refuses to return it. If Owen sues Danny because of that refusal, the most probable result is
a. Owen wins if he sues in trover.
b. Owen wins if he sues in replevin.
c. Both of the above are correct.
d. Danny wins because Owen has lost title.
e. Danny wins because a finder has property rights.
A student might select Choice E based on a casual reading of Armory v. Delamirie. Danny did acquire a finder’s property right by taking up the watch, but this is a limited property right. In the words of Armory, the finder has the right “to keep it against all but the rightful owner.” Because Owen is the true owner, Danny does not have the right to keep the watch when Owen requests its return.
Under certain circumstances, the true owner of lost goods can lose title, thereby vesting full title in the finder. The true owner could lose title by abandonment, which generally requires a manifestation of intent to relinquish ownership. Alternatively, a true owner can lose title by adverse possession if the finder keeps the chattel for a period longer than the statute of limitations and satisfies the other elements for adverse possession of chattels. Choice D could point to either doctrine, but neither one would apply here. There’s no evidence that Owen ever intended to relinquish ownership, and all statutes of limitation are at least several years; Owen has been out of possession for only three months.
Thus, Owen should prevail in his suit against Danny, and to pick among Choices A, B, and C, we need to consider remedies. Danny has converted the watch by refusing to return it to Owen, continuing that resistance after the filing of litigation. A court would grant trover if Owen requested that remedy, awarding Owen damages equal to the value of the watch. If Owen as an alternative requested replevin, the court would order Danny to return the watch. Thus C is the best answer.
General Rule
A true owner does not lose title by losing property. The owner’s rights persist even if lost or mislaid. Thus, the finder has superior rights to everyone except the true owner.
Prior Possessors
Have superior right against all others except for true owner
Relativity of Title
True owner>prior possessors>subsequent possessors
Relativity of Title applies to what kind of property?
personal and real property
How is ownership different from possession
Ownership is the title of property proved by document (maybe from prior possessor). Possession is proved by showing physical control over the property and the intent to exclude others
Why would policy promote rights in the finder?
Protects the honest reporting finder. Rewards labor in retiring useful item back to society and greater chance of return to the true owner
Rank the following places where a person has found a chattel in order of the probability that the finder may not keep the property when confronted by the claim of the owner of the locus in quo (rank from most likely that the owner prevails to least likely).
a. In the hall bathroom of a single-family house, the finding taking place during a birthday party with 80 guests.
b. On the floor in the main lobby of a bus station, owned by a private intercity bus company, the finding taking place while the bus station is open to travelers.
c. In a fitting room of a clothing store, where customers may try on merchandise, during hours when the store is open to shoppers.
d. Next to the sofa in the living room of an apartment, while the only persons present in the apartment are the tenant and a guest of the tenant.
e. On the lawn in a small park owned and operated by the city, for which the city does not control access or charge an admission fee.
Let’s examine each of the five scenarios in order. (1) Under the public/private place distinction, a finding inside a single-family house normally presents a very strong claim for the homeowner. Most homeowners exercise substantial control and dominion over who may enter for what purposes. Under these facts, cutting against that claim, at least slightly, is the fact that the finding takes place during a party with a very large invitation list. The homeowner, however, has not opened her house to the public.
(2) The bus station is privately owned, but the place of finding is as open as any establishment that is open to the public. This is a very strong case for the finder.
(3) The clothing store may be just as open to the public as the bus station, but the place of finding is different. In many stores, there is some restricted access to fitting rooms, and the fitting room is to be used by customers for the limited purpose of trying on clothes. The clothing store may argue that it exercises more dominion and control over the fitting rooms than other areas of the store.
(4) The living room of the apartment, with only one guest present (who presumably is the finder) is the strongest case for the owner of the locus in quo. Some students will rank the apartment tenant’s claim below that of the homeowner (number 1), but that case is weaker due to the size of the birthday party. It should make no difference that the chattel is found in an apartment rather than a single-family home (both are private residences). Likewise, it should not matter that here the “owner” of the locus in quo (the apartment) is a tenant, rather than a fee simple owner (presumably the case for the home in number 1).
(5) The city’s possible claim to a chattel found in its park is the weakest because there is no evidence of the city’s dominion and control. The bus station and the clothing store are closed for part of each day, and proprietors of such establishments usually monitor customers’ conduct more closely than a city park department monitors the conduct of park patrons.
Putting this all together, the ranking is 4–1–3–2–5. So my answer is E. The closest call, in my opinion, is between (1) and (3). Some clothing stores have attendants, with customers only allowed to use a specific fitting room as directed by an attendant. That procedure certainly would reflect more control than a homeowner usually exercises when allowing a guest at a large party to use the hall bathroom. But I’m convinced that there’s something special about a home as a place of finding that will steer most courts to prefer the homeowner over a guest finder.
Candy goes to Garcia’s Restaurant to have dinner. When the hostess seats Candy and her party at a booth, Candy sees a purse on the seat portion of the booth. The purse evidently had been placed there by a woman who had eaten at that table earlier in the evening. Candy picks up the purse and turns it in to Garcia, the owner of the restaurant. Garcia attempts to locate the true owner, but to no avail. Who has the better claim to the purse if the jurisdiction treats the purse as mislaid property?
a. Candy, because her possession is what the true owner would have intended.
b. Garcia, because his possession is what the true owner would have intended.
c. Candy, because Garcia opened his restaurant to members of the public.
d. Garcia, because he was already in possession of the purse when Candy picked it up.
e. The court would order a sale of the purse with the proceeds split between Candy and Garcia.
The most basic point to remember about the mislaid property doctrine is that it favors the landowner over the finder. In a state that applies the lost/mislaid distinction, if the court determines that the chattel is mislaid, it awards the property to the landowner. Due to the place where Candy found the purse, on the seat of the booth, it is a reasonable inference that the purse was mislaid. This means that the true owner intentionally set it there and forgot to retrieve it when she finished her dinner and left. This question, however, does not require that you make this judgment call. It stipulates that the purse is mislaid. Thus the purse will go to Garcia, so we can strike Choices A, C, and E. With respect to E, there are situations in which a court has determined that two or more persons have an equal claim as finders, but this has not been done with respect to mislaid property.
Choices B and D offer different reasons for awarding the purse to Garcia. D justifies the result based on a conclusion that Garcia was in prior possession of the purse. This theory of possession is the basis of the public/private place distinction but is not part of the thinking behind the mislaid property doctrine. Instead, the mislaid property rule rests upon the assumption that the true owner may remember where she left her property and may return to that location. The true owner’s retrieval of her property is facilitated if the owner of the locus in quo has kept the property as a bailee for the true owner. Choice B, the correct answer, encapsulates this line of thought by stating that Garcia’s possession fulfills the true owner’s probable intent.
In which of the following situations do you think a court is most likely to find that an owner of goods has abandoned ownership?
a. Suzie, a university student, had her backpack stolen while she was in the main library. In the backpack was a pearl necklace valued at $200. She reports the theft to the university police but takes no other measures to recover the necklace. Six years have passed since the theft.
b. Tommy owns a condominium in a beach community, which he rents out to vacationers. The condominium is fully furnished. Three years ago one of the guests took a copper kettle from the kitchen. Although Tommy visits the condominium on occasion to check its condition and make repairs, he has not noticed that the kettle is missing.
c. In March Ron, a college freshman, lends his DVD of the movie Inception to a classmate, asking her to return it to him by the end of the semester. She hasn’t returned the movie to Ron, and Ron hasn’t asked for it back. It’s now two years later, and they are still acquaintances at the same college.
d. Forty years ago, Isaiah, a newly wed husband, lost his wedding ring in the ocean surf while vacationing with his wife. Last week a person strolling along the beach found the ring and posted a description of the ring’s engraving on Facebook.
In some cases when a party claims that goods were abandoned, the length of time the true owner has been out of possession may be an important consideration. Here Choice D is quite different from the other choices. Isaiah lost his wedding ring 40 years ago, and the other three “losers” lost possession no more than 6 years ago. If this was all you had to go on, D would be the best choice.
But there’s more to consider. With Isaiah’s wedding ring, all we have is a lengthy period of non-possession, with nothing more to indicate he no longer desires to own the ring. Thus D is a weak choice. A is also weak for the same reason. There’s nothing to indicate that Suzie doesn’t want her pearl necklace back. The fact that she hasn’t taken any measures to recover the necklace, other than filing one police report, doesn’t go far. What else, realistically, could she do? Inaction in this context does not manifest the intent to relinquish ownership.
Consider Tommy’s situation in B. If the question were “In which situation is a finding of abandonment least likely?” we should pick B. Tommy does not yet know he no longer is in possession of his copper kettle. It may be true that he’s highly unlikely to get the kettle back, but that is not the issue. It does not seem logical to say that a person intends to no longer own an object that he believes he still possesses.
This leaves C as a better choice than the others. In contrast to the other fact patterns, Ron has known where his property was (and who had it) all along. He voluntarily gave possession of his Inception DVD to a friend, who has never returned it. This is a bailment, and Ron continues to own the DVD for so long as the bailment continues. However, the bailment was intended to last no more than the remainder of the school year, and it’s now two years later. Although it’s quite possible that a court will not find abandonment here if Ron suddenly asks for “his” DVD back, it’s also conceivable that a court would say that his protracted inaction evinced an intent to abandon ownership.
For the past 20 years John has owned and lived in a wood-frame house, originally built in 1925. He hires Rachel, age 12, to dig up an area of his lawn by the side of his house where John wants to put in a vegetable garden. John agrees to pay Rachel $7 an hour. Rachel uses a shovel, hoe, and rake. After she has been working almost two hours, she strikes something several inches under the soil with the shovel. It turns out to be a glass jar with a metal lid. The glass is broken, possibly due to Rachel’s striking it with the shovel. The jar contains 41 silver dollars, which were minted between 1931 and 1944. Rachel hands the jar to John, who thanks her and says that he has never seen the jar or coins before. In most states today that recognize the doctrine of treasure trove, who has the better right to possess the silver dollars?
a. Rachel.
b. John.
c. The state where John’s house is located.
d. The United States.
e. Rachel and John each should have an equal share.
This question focuses on the elements of treasure trove. The coins satisfy all the normal elements of treasure trove. They are precious metal—silver. The mint dates, together with the age of the house, suggests that someone buried the jar of coins in the yard a long time ago, satisfying the requirement of antiquity. The jar is important because (along with the large number of coins) it supports the inference that the coins were not accidentally dropped by their owner. Rather, the owner buried the coins to hide them, and for some reason failed to retrieve them subsequently.
Normally courts award chattels embedded in the soil to the owner of the locus in quo, but treasure trove is an exception. Under American common law, treasure trove goes to the lucky finder. English common law awarded treasure trove to the sovereign (probably such a rule would favor the state but conceivably the United States), but this rule was never accepted in the United States. Rachel should prevail—A is the best answer
What is abandoned property?
the true owner intentionally and voluntarily relinquished the item with the intent to no longer own the object, and without transferring his rights to another person.
What are the two requirements of abandoned property?
o Act of abandonment
o Intent to abandon (must be proved)
Mere passing of time does not prove abandoned
Must be proved
Who does abandoned property go to?
Finder
What is mislaid property?
TO intentionally placed in a given location then left, or intentionally left intending to return later
