http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_fe_st/odd_house_hidden_money_2 This is an interesting story about a contractor who found lots of money hidden in the walls of a house, but wants to keep 40% of it. I think all of it belongs to the homeowner, since it was within the walls of the house. It's nice of the owner to offer him a finders fee, but I think the contractor is being greedy. I'd love to hear other's opinions.
The money belongs to the homeowner. Period. If the homeowner wishes to give a finders fee, the usual percentage is 15%, but the finder's fee is not required. At this point, though, the cost of litigation should come out of the finders fee. The courts will find in favour of the homeowner.
On GMA this morning they were discussing this and stated that the state this happened in has what is called a finders keepers law, which in turn would allow the contractor to keep all of the money. Craig
I think the courts will side with the owner also. The 40 percent 'finders fee' would apply to "treaure" found on public property, in a park,the ocean, for example. i think it would be nice if she gave him something, but don't think she owes him anything. Also, last time I saw a $500 bill and $1000 bill sold at auction, they sold for 30-40 percent above face value, and that was several years ago!!!
What state was this in? I think I should go there, get a contractor's license, and then when someone invites me in to their home I can claim to "find" their TV, stereo, jewelry. Hmmm.. I maybe if I check in their garage, I can "find" a Porche.
Clif, here we go again, but I agree too. it was "within" the walls of the home. "IF" the homewowner wants to pay the contractor a finders fee, then nice of ya, but it is the property of the homeowner.
I seriously doubt this applys to "finding" anything on private property, particularly within the 4 walls of a persons home! Sorry, i ain't buyin' it!!! :roll:
What do you think about this? I read somewhere they were able to trace the original owner of the money based on the dates the money was issued and who owned the home at the time. In that case, do you think any living family members of the previous owner have a right to claim that money as part of his estate?
Unless there were weird clauses in the contract the money goes to the owner. Now if they could prove that money was stolen who would get it? My bet is the government would take it.
First of all, because it's movable property, the money is considered "chattel". Because it was hidden, it's what is called "cached" chattel. Its not considered by law to be part of the real property he bought when he bought the house. But "cached" does not mean abandoned, even if no one ever comes back for it. (more on that in a moment.) One must be aware of property before claiming ownership over it. Because the homeowner was not aware of the existance of the money, it's doubtful he can legally win the claim of "ownership" because he didn't know about it before it was found. As for Mr. Contractor, he is the "finder" of the original set of money, although it sounds like the rest of the money was found by both of them. Now that it's been found, the finder(s) must make all efforts to find the true owner, which would be the decendents. If they have been traced, that part's done. Back to the consideration of "abandoned" v. "lost." In order to be abandoned, the original owner would have had to put it there with the intent of it never being found by him or his heirs ever again...in other words, his intent would have been to walk away from it forever. This would be extremely tough for the finders to prove. Without proof of "abandonment", the chattel is considered by law to be "lost." And the decedents of the original owner can make claim because an owner's right over lost property is never extinguished. So, IMHO...if the decedents show up and can prove they are the rightful heirs of the original owner, they will more than likely get it. If no heirs show up, and the judge follows the law, he will require the 2 men to make what he determines to be a "valid" effort to find the heirs. Once that has occured and no heirs show up, the Contractor will more than likely get the first batch of money he found on his own...and the 2 men will have to split the rest of the money they found together.
do what now? if i buy a house, i buy it as is with whatever is inside it included. unless there's some fine print in the paperwork that slipped by
Do you think the intent to abandon the money would have to have existed at the time the money was hidden? Could not an argument be made that, by selling the house and leaving the money in it, the owner abandoned the money at that point? Normally, when you buy a house, the previous owner either gets all his stuff out by closing, or asks the buyer for additional time to get it. I think anything left behind is abandoned. Of course, if the old man died still owning the house, and the heirs did not know about the money, then they would have a stronger claim to it.
