QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a construction worker has a cause of action to declare a found wallet lost property in a situation where the wallet was found sitting on a top of a duct behind a wall where the wallet appears to have been located since 1972 and has not been claimed by its original owner? BRIEF ANSWER
No, it not likely that Robert Langdon will succeed in his claim to the money found by him on the top of the duct because of the location where the money was found as well as the manner in which it was concealed. Here, since the wallet was found sitting on a duct, it was likely that the original owner intentionally placed the property in this location for safekeeping, with the intent to later return for it.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, Robert Langdon, is a construction worker and an employee for Mason and Mason Construction Company. Currently, Mr. Langdon is working with fifteen other men on the renovation of the second floor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. His primary duty consists of plastering the walls of the law school with his fellow co-workers. In August of 2009, Mr. Langdon was working on the walls located in a far back corner of the second floor when he discovered a dusty item sitting on top of a duct that was behind the wall. Upon further inspection, Langdon found that the item was a faded brown leather wallet, which contained $324 but no other forms of identification. The dated currency caused Langdon to believe the wallet had been between the walls since approximately 1972, but he found no other evidence to estimate how long the wallet had been in that location. Langdon promptly reported the find to the construction foreman who told him to turn the wallet and its contents over to security at Cleveland State University.
Mr. Langdon has inquired as to whether or not he would be entitled to the money since the day of the find. Although no one has claimed the wallet, Cleveland State has expressed intent to hold onto the money as being “mislaid.” Once the appropriate statutory time period has passed. Cleveland State plans to seek recovery of the amount for the University. Mr. Langdon now seeks to have the wallet declared as “lost” property.
DISCUSSION
Two general rules apply to the current issue. The rule regarding lost property is that property is considered lost if the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with its possession through “neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence” and has no knowledge of its whereabouts (Terry v. Lock ). The rule regarding mislaid property is that property is considered mislaid when the owner intentionally and voluntarily places it in a particular location with intent to reclaim the property, but later overlooks or forgets where it was placed (Benjamin v. Lindner) . When determining whether property is lost or mislaid, the court is likely to consider what the property is, the location where the property was found, whether the original owner has claimed the property, and the duration it has remained unclaimed (Toledo Trust Co. v. Simmons) .
Here the facts lean toward intentional placement. There are several cases that identify how courts distinguish between lost and mislaid property. In Benjamin, two packages of currency totaling $18,000 were found under the airplane panel, carefully tied and encased with aluminum foil. Id. Because the currency was carefully hidden, the court reasoned that the original owner intentionally placed the money in this location with intent to retain its ownership later at some point. . The court thus concluded that the property was mislaid rather than lost and rightfully belonged to the owner of the plane.
Similarly, in the case of Terry v. Lock, the currency was found in a dusty box concealed next to a heating and air vent. Here, the court concluded that the money was mislaid property rather than lost because of the placement of the box for its security, “in order to shield it away from unwelcome eyes”. The manner in which the money was placed in the ceiling indicated intentional placement which suggested there was an intent to return In Toledo, the court held that money, found by a bank employee near a safety deposit box review area, was lost property. The plaintiff was employed by a bank when she found an envelope on the floor containing $500.The money was found in an area not open to the general public, but experiencing a significant amount of pedestrian traffic. The money went unclaimed for 15 years. In finding that the money was lost property, the court reasoned that in the 15 years since it was found, no owner had appeared to claim it.This indicated that the placement was unlikely to have been voluntary. The court further reasoned that the fact that the money was found in a semipublic place made it very unlikely to have been intentionally placed.
Based on the above mentioned case laws, it is unlikely that Langdon’s case of action will succeed in declaring the found wallet lost property. The general rule regarding lost property is that the owner must involuntarily part with its possession and have no knowledge of its whereabouts; however, when classifying found property, the court also considers what the property is, the location where it is found, whether the original owner has attempted to claim it, and the time period it has remained unclaimed. Most analogous to our case is Terry v. Lock, in Terry, the court determined that the currency found in the cardboard box was mislaid property. The court reasoned that because of the box’s location, it was likely that the property was intentionally placed near the covered vent “for its security, in order to shield it from unwelcome eyes” and that it was likely the original owner placed it there with the intent to return. Here, the facts are analogous to Terry, since the wallet was found sitting on a duct, the original owner seemingly displayed intent to place the item in that location and later return to claim it. The property in question was not in plain view; therefore, an argument can be made that the original owner may have been a construction worker that intentionally placed the wallet on the duct for safekeeping while working on site, with the intent to return for it after completing the work at hand. Thus, considering the facts present, it is likely the court will declare the wallet as mislaid rather than lost property.
Another example of where the court deemed property as mislaid is found in Benjamin. In Benjamin, the court determined the packet of currency found under the airplane panel was mislaid property. The court reasoned, because the currency was carefully hidden and concealed, it was likely that the original owner intentionally placed the money in this location for safekeeping, with the intent to later return for it. Here, like Benjamin, the facts seemingly indicate that original owner intentionally placed the wallet on the duct in the far back corner of the second floor. An argument can be made that the wallet was intentionally placed in this location for security of the wallet’s contents. Like the found property in Benjamin, the wallet found contained currency ($324), but no other forms of identification as the original owner. The court reasoned “both logic and common sense suggest that that it is unlikely for someone to voluntarily part with $18,000,” without the intent to return to claim it in the future. Based on parallel circumstances in these cases, it is likely that the court will declare the wallet as mislaid property.
CONCLUSION
Based on case law, it seems unlikely that Langdon’s cause of action will succeed in declaring the found wallet lost property. Two general rules apply to the issue at hand. The location where the property was discovered and the manner in which it was concealed. Here, since the wallet was found sitting on a duct, it was likely that the original owner intentionally placed the property in this location for safekeeping, with the intent to later return for it.