"Finders, Keepers" For Hidden Treasure?

Stash Of Money In Woman's Wall Spurs Bizarre Legal Case

(CBS)  Amanda Reece had planned on sinking money into her nearly 90-year-old house, not pulling money out.

“It was more of a fixer-upper than I thought,” Reece told CBS News correspondent Cynthia Bowers.

So, imagine her surprise when her contractor, Bob Kitts, called to say he'd found a hidden treasure - inside the bathroom wall.

“I open up one of the envelopes, tear open the corner and there's a $50 bill. I thought I was going to pass out,” Kitts said.

The total? One hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars, many of them rare bills dating from 1929, worth an estimated half-million dollars.

“It is absolutely the most unusual thing that's ever happened in my life,” Reece said.

Money apparently socked away by the man who built the home - and died without a will or heirs.

In May of 2006, the two celebrated their incredible luck, but the party didn't last long.

Reece says she offered Kitts a 10 percent finder’s fee. He says she offered to split it and then backed out.

Now the two speak only through their attorneys.

Citing an arcane law more commonly associated with sunken treasure found on the high seas than buried treasure in a suburban neighborhood, Kitts is claiming “finders, keepers,” and saying he's entitled to a much bigger chunk.

“It is rarely used, but it must be on the books for a reason,” Kitts said.

Reece's attorney's likens the law to a weird bar exam question.

“Frankly, that may work in kindergarten, but it won’t work now,” said John Chambers, Reece’s Attorney.

Eighteen months later, the money is in a safe deposit box, her bathroom is still in a shambles, and Reece just wants it all to be over.

“I honestly hope and I believe, that the law and common sense will co-mingle,” Reece said.

Just how this buried treasure is divvied up could well be up to a judge. In the meantime, the only people getting a share of the windfall now are the attorneys.

[angelzwatchz]

well I would of said that it''s in her house it belong''s to her she is the owner of the house & he should be happy with a finder fee that she was going to give him & yes the IRS is going to tax that money & whoever get''s it will be taxes big & I think that the contractor is being very greedy but yes if it wasn''t for him she would had never found the money but time only will tell what will happen I think that all of the money should be donated to all of the victims over the world so that they wouldn''t be homeless no more & they would have food & shelter & clothes on their backs they would be very gracies to receive it think of the children & elderly

[concerned_2]

Reece obviously bought the house "AS IS" since she even admitted that it needed more work than she first thought it would need. That "AS IS" would also include anything that the house contained. She hired Kitts as the contractor. That means he worked for her. When he took off with some of the findings to get them checked out, he basically removed it w/o the homeowners permission. Who''s to say he even gave her all that he found? She offered him 10% & he turned it down. Oh well, he doesn''t deserve anything now. If a person owes a bill, & they send money in to be applied to the balance, the creditor knows not to refuse the payment or else the courts could consider the account "Paid In Full". He refused.... he should lose! BESIDES... Kitts was alone in the house w/o the homeowner present. He himself stated %u201CI open up one of the envelopes, tear open the corner and there''s a $50 bill. I thought I was going to pass out,%u201D That proves he snooped. it was SEALED. He opened up something that was inside a customer''s house w/o their permission. hE SHOULD HAVE JUST LEFT IT SEALED & LET HER BE THE ONE TO OPEN IT IF SHE WANTED TO. Kitts is too Greedy, Sneaky & Untrustworthy for me to ever let him ever work in one of my homes!

[wrongo1]

9:22 -- Yes, the IRS has a claim, but not to the money iteself. Treasure Trove is considered taxable as ordinary income. I am not a tax lawyer, but I am fairly certain that they will have to pay on the fair market value, not just the face value of the money.

[bb19631]

It should be the homeowners, she owns the house. The contractor should be happy with what she offered him.

[bmwbmwbmwx3]

How about the I.R.S do they have any claims on money found?????

[yahoo126]

If they can''t come to a agrement why dont we donate it to a real cause like cancer research or a good cause

[wrongo1]

Mity, you are dead wrong. She''ll be lucky if the contractor doesn''t get it all.

Treasure trove is property that consists of coins or currency hidden by the owner. To be considered treasure trove and not mislaid property, the property must have been deliberately hidden or concealed, and sufficiently long ago that the original owner can be considered dead or not discoverable.

Under the common law (including the common law of Ohio), treasure trove belongs to the finder, unless the original owner reclaims. Some states (but not Ohio) have rejected the common law and hold that treasure trove belongs to the owner of the property in which the treasure trove was found. These courts reason that the common law rule encourages trespass.

Here, since the contractor in this case was not trespassing when he found the loot, the policy considerations that have led some courts to reject the treaure trove law would not apply. Furthermore, if simply purchasing the house was enough to aquire title, why wouldn''t everyone who has owned the house since Dunne died be entitled to a share? Why, in fact, would the money not go to the bank that holds the mortgage?

The Dunne heirs, if any, have the best claim, though they will have to prove that he hid it. That''s what the evidence suggests (his name was on the wrapping), but of course we can never really be sure. In any event, the entitlement runs as follows: (i) Dunne; (ii) Kitts; (iii) Reece.

[dondo53]

Turns out in Lakewood Ohio where Peter Dunne is buried, he has listed a half-brother. If his heirs
can be located, both Kitts and Reece may be out the
entire lot as they would be the surviving family. So
it looks like a 3 way legal fight now.

[grammawhamma]

She doesn''t have to give him anything if she doesn''t want to. I do think however she could be a little bit more generous than 10% since the guy was honest.

I live in 120 year old fixer upper...maybe I should start tearing some walls down. LOL

[mitywhity]

Filthy greedy contractor should be happy with whatever she offers. That s.o.b. was on her property and her property includes everything on her property. He needs a midnight calling.

[jaykay3141]

Uh, could somebody spend one minute with a dictionary and please fix the caption under this posting''s picture? "Equivilant" ??? Sheesh! Try EQUIVALENT.