Depression Era money found in wall in Cleveland - should contractor have rightful claim to it?

Question

A contractor in Cleveland found $182,000 of Depression Era money inside a bathroom wall in Cleveland as he was remodeling the bathroom for a high school friend. Now the contractor is trying to claim the money as his. Do you think it is ethical for him to try claiming the money as his? According to the story, Ohio has a "finders keepers" law that applies if it appears any owner will reappear to reclaim it. Peter Dunne own the house during the Depression Era and one of the boxes had P Dunne on it. I would think that law applies to Peter Dunne and his family and not to Reece the current owner of the house. To me, I would think the money would become the property of the owner of the house after the original owner (Peter Dunne) had not come back to claim it after a certain number of years. I could see the contractor maybe getting a small percentage (say 10%) for finding it. But to me that's like stealing out of a person's house. What is your view and why?

Answer 1

Not at all, when an owner buys the house, he buys everything in it, around it, under it, over it. Lost is lost. There is no clause in his contract that says other wise. When the house was sold, it was sold as a whole, and all with in it.
The new owner is the rightful owner of the money, and anything else to be found in or around the house.

Answer 2

The contractor has no rightful claim to this money. When the Reece's bought the house, they bought everything in it and on the property. Finder's keeper's law cannot apply to inside someone's house. My husband and I own a remodeling business. He found a diamond ring wedged between the carpet he was removing and the baseboard. He gave it to the homeowner and she started freaking out with excitement. It was her wedding ring that had been missing for 2 months. So, just because someone finds something in your house, doesn't mean it's theirs to keep. That would be rediculous. The contractor will never win this case.

Answer 3

I Agree the current home owner should have first right of ownership, since the original owner obviously "discarded " it by selling the house and failing to remove it before selling. the contractor having found the "deposit" might be inline for a small percentage but not the entire amount, however in this day and age the contractor or the "p. Dunn" will get it.

Answer 4

This contractor is trying to use some old law on the books that relates to pirates and treasures in hopes of being able to keep the money. Wrong! Unless some Judge or Jury buys into this old law which I doubt. I think this is a case where possession does not constitute ownership. I feel the owner of the home rightly deserves the money. Maybe the owner would give a reward to the contractor so everyone wins except the lawyers.

Answer 5

Simple answer as far as the contractor goes : If you don't own the property, you don't own anything you find while working there. Let the Dunnes and the Reeces fight it out. The contractor is an employee of the current owner. If a Plumber strikes gold or oil while digging a waterline, he doesn't own it.

Answer 6

No. He has no claim on anything found in the home, any materials salvaged (unless given permission by the home owner) or anything else. It is not his property. He is going to come up on the short end of this one when a judge gets done with him. When the current owner bought the house, that would include anything and everything left in the house, whether knowingly or unknowingly. A finders fee would be ok but not required.

Answer 7

i agree with you. the money should belong to peter dunne or the family of. attempts should be made to notify peter dunne or immediate relative. if after a reasonable amount of time, maybe 3 months, there's no response from dunne family, the money should belong to new owner of property. either way, contractor deserves a finders fee of maybe 10-15% like u say.

Answer 8

I think the fairest thing would be pay a finder's fee to contractor, maybe 20% and then split remainder between former and current owner. Nobody would get all of it; everybody will get something.

Seeing as how this is a fair solution it would probably be rejected in favor of a lawsuit. Then only the lawyers would get any money!!! Shakespeare was right, "Lets kill the lawyers"!

edit: Is it just me or does it seem insane that they would hide money when the depression was going on and there was so much need? This makes me wonder if the money was originally gotten by dishonest methods......Gee, how insane is it to hide a literal fortune in a time of desperate poverty?

Answer 9

It was in the homeowners home, the contractor is a guest in their home, being paid to do work, He should not have any claim to the money! That is like a plumber clearing a clog and finding a diamond ring or something and taking claim to it!! Ridiculous I think! I hope the homeowners win. and shame on the contractor, he may just end up ruining his business name, I know if I heard about him I would not contract him out.. I think it is dishonest.

Answer 10

You have to ask two questions:

#1, whose house is it?
#2, who asked the contractor to knock down wall?

The answer is the same.
That would be the owner of the house.
The contractor should not be entitled to even 1% of the find.
That house is not a public place.