Finders Rights - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

FINDERS RIGHTS Finders Rights Finders’ Rights: First in time, first in right.  Finders have a right to possession against all but the true owner. Hierarchy of Entitlement to Possession: (1) True Owner (2) Earliest possessor (the first finder) other than the true owner (3) Second earliest known possessor (second finder) (4) Third earliest known possessor (third finder)….. ** Armory v. Delamirie ** Facts: Chimney sweep found a ring while working. He took it to a shop to assess the value. Shop owner attempted to return the ring to the boy without the jewel in it. Rule: Priority of rights to possession dictates that a finder has better title over property against anyone but the true owner. Exception: Owners who abandon their property lose title to that property. ** Charrier v. Bell ** Facts: Archeologist obtained permission to survey a property for possible burial locations. He believed the person that granted permission was the owner of the land. Archeologist located excavated artifacts from 30-40 burial plots. He then attempted to sell the artifacts. Rule: Artifacts found in burial plots are not abandoned property. They belong to the descendants of the deceased and title cannot acquired without consent of the descendants.

Categories of Property Abandoned Property: Personal property is abandoned when the owner has the full intention to give up title and possession to property.  Abandoned property belongs to the finder of the property against everyone, including the former owner. Lost Property: Personal property is lost when the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with possession and does not know the property’s location.  Lost property belongs to the finder of the property against all but the true owner.

o EXCEPTION: Employees who find property while engaged in an act of their employment are not entitled to lost property. o EXCEPTION: When items are found in a highly private location where the public does not have access, the owner of that location retains possessory rights over the finder. Mislaid Property: Mislaid property is voluntarily put in a certain place by the owner who then overlooks or forgets where the property is.  The finder of mislaid property acquires no rights to the property. o Right of possession belongs to the owner of the locus in quo against all but the true owner. Treasure Trove: Treasure trove is property that has been hidden or concealed for such a length of time that the owner is probably deceased or undiscoverable.  Right of possession belongs to the finder against all but the true owner. FINDER HYPOS Hypo #1: Plaintiff was a customer at a barber shop and found a purse on the counter. Gave the purse to the shop owner. Owner of the purse never returned. Plaintiff wanted the purse but shop owner refused to give it to them. Purse was mislaid property and must stay with the owner of the locus in quo. Hypo #2: Plaintiff was employee of an airline. He was performing maintenance on a plane currently owned by a bank. Employee found $18K hidden in a compartment in the wing. Money was mislaid property. Hidden in a compartment, so unlikely to just be “lost.” It would belong to the owner of the locus in quo (aka the plane). Plane is currently owned by the bank, so they would own the money.

SOVERIGTY Doctrine of Discovery: Sovereign has the right to claim ownership of new land as a conqueror. ** Johnson and Grahm’s Lessee v. M’Intosh ** Facts: Johnson (British citizen) granted land from chiefs of Piankeshaw Tribe. Treaty with King of England reserving that area as tribal land. When Johnson died, he left the property to his heirs. Following the colonies independence from England, the State of Virginia claimed rights to the land for the US. M’Intosh purchased the land from Congress.

Holding: The Indigenous Tribes native to the land did not have the right to convey title to that land. Absolute title rests in the discoverer of the land, not the native people who occupy it.

Sovereignty Takeaway: Ownership limits do not just dictate when a person becomes an owner, but can also dictate circumstances under which a person cannot become an owner. TRESPASS Elements of Trespass: Trespass involves (1) intentional (2) intrusion onto private property (3) without permission. 

Intent Element: Defendant only needs to have the intention of performing whatever act is causing the intrusion, not knowledge of crossing a property line or intent to commit a wrongful trespass.



Intrusion Element: A trespass may be committed on, above, or below the surface of the plaintiff’s land. o Defendant also does not need to personally enter onto the plaintiff’s land.  Ex: throwing rocks onto the land, intentionally flooding plaintiff’s land, etc. is sufficient.



Without Permission Element: Entering without consent. o EXCEPTIONS: (1) Necessity Doctrine (2) Broader public interests outweigh privacy interests ** State v. Shack **

Facts: Medical professional and a lawyer entered a private property to aid a migrate farm worker. Farm worker was employed and lived on the property. They were charged with trespass by the owner of the farm. Rule: An owner cannot exert control over what services persons the owner permits to live and work on the property are allowed to receive. ** Commonwealth v. Magadini ** Facts: Magadini was homeless. During extremely cold weather, he would seek shelter in private buildings. Magadini was charged with trespass. Judge refused to entertain the necessity defense and he was convicted. Rule: Necessity Defense can exonerate one who commits a criminal or civil trespass under certain circumstances if the harm that would result from compliance with the law outweighs the harm resulting from the violation of the law.



Four Elements to the Necessity Defense: o Clear and imminent danger, not one which is debatable or speculative o A reasonable expectation that his/her action will be effective as the direct cause of abating the danger o There is no legal alternative which will be effective in abating the danger o The legislature has not acted to preclude the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue. ** Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. **

Facts: Uston banned from playing blackjack for counting cards. Three Different Rules in this Case: Traditional English Common Law: There is a right of reasonable access to public places. Traditional American Common Law: Owners have an absolute right to arbitrarily exclude any person from their property, with the exception of inns and common carriers. Uston Minority Rule: When property owners open their doors to the general public, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably.

** Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ** Facts: Tanner distributed pamphlets inviting people to a meeting to protest the draft. Mall asked him to leave and excluded him from distributing the pamphlets on the premises. Rule: Private property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited in for designated purposes....