Contractor, Owner Feud Over Hidden Cash

[dysfunctional press]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=456&sid=1309240

CLEVELAND (AP) - A contractor who helped discover bundles of Depression-era U.S. currency totaling $182,000 hidden behind bathroom walls said the homeowner should turn the money over to him or at least share it...

The fight began in May 2006 when Kitts was gutting Reece's bathroom and found a box below the medicine cabinet that contained $25,200. "I almost passed out," Kitts recalled. "It was the ultimate contractor fantasy." He called Reece, who rushed home. Together they found another steel box tied to the end of a wire nailed to a stud. Inside was more than $100,000, Kitts said. Two more boxes were filled with a mix of money and religious memorabilia...

Most of the currency, issued in 1927 and 1929, is in good condition, and some of the bills are so rare that one currency appraiser valued the treasure at up to $500,000. Kitts said he took some of the currency for an appraisal and learned that many of the $10 bills were rare 1929-series Cleveland Federal Reserve bank notes, worth about $85 each. There also were $500 bills and one $1,000 bill. John Chambers, an attorney for Reece, said Kitts rejected his client's offer of a 10 percent finder's fee and demanded 40 percent of the small fortune...

Kitts asserts he found lost money, and court rulings in Ohio establish that a "finders keepers" law applies if there's no reason to believe any owner will reappear to claim it. It may be up to a judge to decide, said Heidi Robertson, a professor who teaches property law at Cleveland State University.

what's to decide? the woman IS the owner. when she bought the house, she bought the contents as well.
if the contractor opened a wall and found solid gold plumbing pipes- would he claim those as well?
he should have graciously accepted the 10% he was offered, although i believe that ship has sailed now that there are lawyer bills for the OWNER to pay. i hope the selfish bastard never gets another contracting job- i'd sure never hire him after this.

[Bitwit1234]

1. So now...what's in my house isn't mine. And if you find it it is yours.

How come if you find a jewel at one of those places where they let you dig for them, they belong to the people who own the place UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE.

[Vinca]

2. This is the dumbest claim I've ever heard.

The woman owns the house and everything in the walls - insulation, mouse droppings and cash. The contractor should have taken the 10% because he's now going to end up with zero.

[NashVegas]

3. He Should Be Happy And Take the Finders' Fee

Geez ... does he not realize the business value in being seen as an honest businessman? Or does he think he's going to retire?

[smoogatz]

4. If the contractor had found a huge colony of bats or a black mold spot

the size of a Volskwagen, would he be liable for the cost of removing them?

[TahitiNut]

5. Even under the principles of "work for hire," the homeowner, who hired the contractor, has ...

... ownership of the results of labor performed under the contract. That would include uncovering valuables.

Alternatively, any house-cleaner would be able to extract all items "lost" in the cushions of a couch and confiscate them -- watches, bracelets, money, or even the remote control for the TV. Thus, any ruling that grants the contractor any title or interest in the property, beyond a "workman's lien" for agreed fees, would erode centuries of law and usage.

I think it's interesting that Kitts is apparently an individual contractor, without employees or subcontractors. If Kitts had an employee who found the cache, would the employee "own" the find? I rather doubt Kitts would think so. This is, imho, a clear case of attempting to cherry-pick and misinterpret law and principles of equity to suit an appetite.

[Fridays Child]

6. When she bought the house, everything in it, whether...

...visible; obscured by walls, roof, or flooring; or under the property, became hers. If a swimming pool contractor discovers that the property he's digging up used to be a burial ground, does he take ownership of, and responsibilty for, the bodies he finds? Nope. He halts operations and the whole mess becomes the problem of the property owner.

In this case, I think the contractor is just making an outlandish claim to coerce her into settling with him for a share of the treasure rather than spending a bunch of money in court.