• Forum server maintanace tonight.
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Finder's Keepers; Loser's Weepers (not quite)

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewCNJ

Elite Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
579
Location
Monmouth County, NJ
I'm studying for the NJ Bar Exam and came across an interesting multiple choice question that I think this forum will benefit from reading. I've changed the facts around slightly to mimic a situation where a MD'er could be in a legal "dilemma".

Question: A metal detector and his friend are in a public park. The metal detector finds a gold ring two inches below the ground. The friend asks, "What have you found?" The metal detector replies, "I found a gold ring. It is engraved with 'Joe Schmoe, License Plate # 1234567'". The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

If the metal detector is charged with a theft crime, he will be found:

A: not guilty because he committed no trespassory taking.

B: not guilty because it's finder's keepers; losers weepers

C: guilty of larceny, because there were clues to the identity of the owner

D: guilty of embezzlement, because he was in proper possession of the ring when he formed the intent to permanently deprive the true owner

The correct answer is:guilty of larceny, because there were clues to the identity of the true owner of the ring.

Discussion of correct answer:The owner of a lost object continues in "constructive possession" of it until someone finds it. Thus, if the finder forms an intent to permanently deprive the owner at the moment the object is found, there is a sufficient trespassory taking to support a conviction for larceny. If there are sufficient clues to ownership through which the true owner could be found by using reasonable diligence, the trespassory taking is larceny. Here, the guitarist formed the intent to keep the ring immediately on discovering it. He claimed ownership instantly and asserted that anyone who found something was entitled to keep it. The true owner's surname was engraved on the ring, plus a driver's license number that would have facilitated identification. Under these circumstances, the MD'er is guilty of larceny.

Discussion of incorrect answers:

Incorrect. not guilty, because he committed no trespassory taking of the ring. This choice is incorrect on these details. The owner of a lost object continues in "constructive possession" of it until someone finds it. When the finder of a lost object immediately forms an intent to permanently deprive the true owner of the object despite there being a possibility of identifying the owner, he violates the owner's constructive possession. That violation is a trespassory taking.

Incorrect. not guilty, because it's "finders, keepers; losers, weepers." This choice is an inaccurate statement of law. Only if there are no clues to ownership that could, with reasonable diligence, permit the finder to locate the true owner, is the finder of a lost object entitled to keep it without criminal liability. Since the ring in the problem has good clues to ownership, the guitarist was not entitled to keep it without exercising due diligence to find the true owner.

Incorrect. guilty of embezzlement, because he was in proper possession of the ring when he formed the intent to permanently deprive the true owner. Whether a finder obtains rightful possession of an object is determined by his mental state at the time of the finding. If he has an immediate intention to permanently deprive the true owner, he immediately violates the owner's constructive possession, and the finder's possession is wrongful. (However, such a finder is only guilty of larceny, if there are sufficient clues to ownership.) If at the time of finding, the finder has not formed any intent to keep the object for himself, his possession thereafter is rightful. If there are clues to ownership, and if the finder subsequently formed a wrongful intent, he would be guilty of embezzlement. Here, the MD'er formed the intent to deprive immediately upon finding the ring, so his possession was wrongful, and he committed larceny rather than embezzlement.
 
Got prison wear?
 

Attachments

  • ring bearer.jpg
    ring bearer.jpg
    8.7 KB · Views: 1,036
As the finder of the ring, do I now -- simply because I found the object -- have a legal obligation to act to return the ring? Am I obligated to call the DMV to try to get a current address? What if I don't have a phone? Am I obligated to turn the item into the police and have THEM return it? What if I do not own a vehicle that I can use to drive to the police station?

I understand that the statement "I know who owns this ring, and I am going to keep it anyway" makes me guilty of larcency, but what about "I know who owns this ring, and I will gladly return it if I ever run into him, but I am not going to make any effort to do so?"
 
The chances of finding a ring with a first and last name I personally think would be semi rare, but even if you did how would you go about returning it? Turn it in to the police? 90% of the time they do nothing but hold the ring to see if someone comes to claim it. Then after a waiting period you have a "let's be generous" 50% chance of being able to get it back, and another 50% that they auction it or whatever other means they could use it for to raise money. I know "some people" that if a ring were to be found with a first and last name then they may be so inclined as to gently remove said name and polish it up :hmmm:

Something similar to this scenario was posted on the forums here. Like was said there, it would be one thing if it were a fresh drop...but 2 inches under ground :?:
 
As the finder of the ring, do I now -- simply because I found the object -- have a legal obligation to act to return the ring? Am I obligated to call the DMV to try to get a current address? What if I don't have a phone? Am I obligated to turn the item into the police and have THEM return it? What if I do not own a vehicle that I can use to drive to the police station?

I understand that the statement "I know who owns this ring, and I am going to keep it anyway" makes me guilty of larcency, but what about "I know who owns this ring, and I will gladly return it if I ever run into him, but I am not going to make any effort to do so?"

If there are identifying marks on the property or ring that you find, then you must search diligently to find the owner. If the ring has a name engraved on it, then you are under a duty to discover the owner. However, if there are no marks or identifying features, then no problem, it's yours. It really depends on what marks or engravings are on the property.

Even if there are engravings on the ring, if you search diligently, do research, and can't come up with an owner, then it is legally yours.
 
If there are identifying marks on the property or ring that you find, then you must search diligently to find the owner. If the ring has a name engraved on it, then you are under a duty to discover the owner. However, if there are no marks or identifying features, then no problem, it's yours. It really depends on what marks or engravings are on the property.

Even if there are engravings on the ring, if you search diligently, do research, and can't come up with an owner, then it is legally yours.

So basically you just say that you searched high and low, did everything you could, and you are good to go? That seems a little to black and white to me. We all know how black and white the law is :laughing:
 
So basically you just say that you searched high and low, did everything you could, and you are good to go? That seems a little to black and white to me. We all know how black and white the law is :laughing:

That's the legal theory at least. Of course, circumstances vary from case to case (and state to state). The question above is analyzed under common law theory; a generalized approach which can be altered by state legislation. Some states still use the common law, others have changed it.

If I found an item with an engraving, to guard myself from liability, I would research the engraving and come up with any possible owners; I would document every action that I had taken in order to comply with the "diligence" requirement. Of course, it depends on the circumstances and the specificity of the engraving.

Also, depending on the jurisdiction you live in, you may be required to turn over lost property to the police; but after a certain amount of time, with no legitimate person claiming the property, it will become yours. This would satisfy the "diligent search" requirement as well. Check your local state statutes regarding lost and found property.
 
I'm just asking theoretically. I would try any way I could think of to return a ring to its owner (I think it would be a kick to be able to do that).

But if the law says it's larceny to not return property, to what lengths does the law expect a finder to go? Sounds like a HUGE grey area to me.
 
I'm just asking theoretically. I would try any way I could think of to return a ring to its owner (I think it would be a kick to be able to do that).

But if the law says it's larceny to not return property, to what lengths does the law expect a finder to go? Sounds like a HUGE grey area to me.


In New Jersey:

46:30C-4. Claiming of lost property.

4. a. A person may claim lost property only after making reasonable efforts to return the property to its owner.

b. If the owner of the lost property does not reclaim it within 120 days of the commencement of reasonable efforts to return it:

(1) The owner of the premises where the property was found may claim title to buried or hidden lost property or to lost property which a trespasser found;

(2) The finder of the property may claim title to lost property in other cases.

Duty of the Finder:

A finder of lost property shall make reasonable efforts to return the property to its owner.

Reasonable efforts to return the property depend on the nature of the property, the circumstances in which it is found and the obtainable information concerning its owner. Reasonable efforts may include:

a. attempts to notify the owner of the lost property, or the owner of the premises where found,

b. delivery to the owner or person in charge of the premises where the property was found, or

c. delivery to the local police, or to a lost-and-found facility for the premises where the property was found.

In most cases, if the owner does not reclaim found property, subsection (b)(2) assigns title to the finder. The finder's claim to the property is normally the best. However, subsection (b)(1) assigns the title to found property to the owner of the place where the property was found if the found property was "buried or hidden or was found by a trespasser." These restrictions discourage one person from searching or in any way violating another's land in order to discover hidden articles.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated §46:30C-4 vests buried or hidden property in the landowner. Hence, express permission is the best way to go about detecting for buried items on someone else's property.

A majority of state courts, including those of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, have ruled that the finder of buried lost property is entitled to it, unless of course, you are a trespasser.

Despite this, there are important distinctions to be made between lost, mislaid, abandoned property; as well as property known as "treasure trove" (coins, gold, silver). Depending on how the find is classified, different law will apply. It is very complicated, but here is a great article that I found which lays out the distinctions.

http://www.inc-cin.org/assets/pdf/articles/laws-usa.pdf
 
I am looking forward to discussing this scenario with you. Please do not jump to any assumptions if I inquire to more facts about your scenario. You mention a public park. Are you referring to a Federal,State, County, City or other type of public park? Thank you.
 
I am looking forward to discussing this scenario with you. Please do not jump to any assumptions if I inquire to more facts about your scenario. You mention a public park. Are you referring to a Federal,State, County, City or other type of public park? Thank you.

I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions. I have access to westlaw and lexis, and have been trained in legal research, so I'm willing to help while learning about the subject myself.

With regards to government property, whether it be State, Federal or County....the government has the power to regulate their lands as they see fit. So, if they have designated certain places as OK to dig, then it's OK of course. For example, in Monmouth County, the Park System has laid out standards for detecting (http://co.monmouth.nj.us/documents/132/metal_dec.pdf). If a County has not set forth guidelines for their parks, then state law applies (unless you are on federal property).

My original post is interesting because I changed the facts to say that the MD'er found the ring in a public park two inches below the ground. After doing research, I've found that many states differentiate between finding lost property on the ground, and actually digging to discover the object. In the majority of states, if you are lawfully on the premises, and you dig to find an object, then you have vested title of ownership in that property. In New Jersey, however, the land owner has title over the property.

National Geographic Excerpt
Fred Limp, president of the Society for American Archaeology, summed it up: "Basically, except for materials on federal land, state law applies and, with some exceptions, objects are the property of the land owner." There is no standard rule; it varies state to state.

Federal laws are strict. "A stone tool is property of the federal government in perpetuity," said Limp. "Its digging up is a violation of law and can be a felony." Depending on the state, the same object found on private land may or may not have protection.

In other words, "private landowners can dig up all the sites they want and sell on eBay," said Tom Green, director of the Arkansas Archeological Survey. A notable exception is burial sites.
 
I am looking forward to discussing this scenario with you. Please do not jump to any assumptions if I inquire to more facts about your scenario. You mention a public park. Are you referring to a Federal,State, County, City or other type of public park? Thank you.

I found some of my old law school notes from Property I. This details the general principals that we have been discussing.


§ 4.06 Rights of Finder Against Landowner

[A] Rights to Objects Found on Private Land

Lost objects found either within a house or embedded in the soil are generally awarded to the landowner, not the finder. The status of the finder is sometimes relevant here. A long-term tenant who finds an object will often prevail over the landowner, while a finder who is merely the landowner’s employee will not.

Rights to Treasure Trove

American courts differ on how to handle treasure trove. Although some older courts award title to the finder, the modern view is to award it to the landowner.

[C] Rights to Objects Found in Public Places

A valuable object left in a public place is considered mislaid property and awarded to the owner or occupant of the premises, not the finder.


§ 4.07 Statues Defining Rights of Finders

In many states, statues governing rights in “found” property supersede the confusing common law. The typical statute requires the finder to turn over the item to the local police department; the find is then advertised and the true owner has a set period (ranging from 90 days to one year) to file a claim. If no claim is made within this period, the item belongs to the finder. If the true owner makes a timely claim, some jurisdictions require that she pay a reward to the finder.
 
Personally , myself , if I find something that is marked in any way that would make it possible to find the owner , then that's what you do , return it .
Scenario : You find a ring at the park . it is inscribed with a name. You clean it up and sell it for scrap price . $1000.00 dollars . Woo hoo , new detector .
A couple days later ( this part is added for extra significance ) you meet a sweet young lady at that same park . She comes there regularly , ya"ll talk and become friends , and form a great friendship . Then one day she mentions losing this ring that belonged to her grandmother passed down thru generations . Now what do you do ?

1) Tell her you found it and sold it the next day,
2 ) Say nothing and continue the friendship even tho everytime you see her , you see that ring ,
3) ????

Personally , I couldn't sleep at night knowing I got rid of something that could have been returned .
 
I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions.

"The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

What would be a proper defense to counter an argument by the friend that She/He were part owner of the ring since it was a joint venture as for as searching for possible lost items?
 
I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions.

"The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

What would be a proper defense to counter an argument by the friend that She/He were part owner of the ring since it was a joint venture as for as searching for possible lost items?

Exactly. Your argument would be that you have title over any third party because you were the one who found the item.

§ 4.05 Rights of Finder Against Third Persons Generally

The finder acquires title to lost property that is superior to the claims of all other persons, except (1) the true owner and (2) sometimes the landowner. For example, in Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), a “chimney sweeper’s boy” found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith, who refused to return it; the court concluded that the boy had title to the jewel, not the goldsmith.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewCNJ View Post
I'm actually learning as we discuss so feel free to ask questions.

"The friend asks to see the ring, but the metal detector says, "No way. This ring is mine now, finder's keepers; losers weepers."

What would be a proper defense to counter an argument by the friend that She/He were part owner of the ring since it was a joint venture as for as searching for possible lost items?-Kemper

Exactly. Your argument would be that you have title over any third party because you were the one who found the item.

§ 4.05 Rights of Finder Against Third Persons Generally

The finder acquires title to lost property that is superior to the claims of all other persons, except (1) the true owner and (2) sometimes the landowner. For example, in Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), a “chimney sweeper’s boy” found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith, who refused to return it; the court concluded that the boy had title to the jewel, not the goldsmith.


No. My argument would be as stated. My argument could be relative to the person that found the ring as well as the person claiming to be the original owner. My argument has no indications it would be "over" but rather in conjunction with.
 
Then you would both hold joint title over the property, subject to (1) the true owner and possibly (2) the landowner (depending on the state you live in). However, how can you both find the item? One person will be the finder unless you both saw it and picked it up at the same time.
 
Then you would both hold joint title over the property, subject to (1) the true owner and possibly (2) the landowner (depending on the state you live in). However, how can you both find the item? One person will be the finder unless you both saw it and picked it up at the same time.

Yes you can both "find" the item. If an agreement were made between two searchers ,either verbally or written, that all items discovered on said outing were to be considered jointly owned until such time said items were divided between both parties in an agreeable fashion.

My question to you is still as stated and was seeking a proper defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom