Memorandum
To: Senior Partner
From: Junior associate
Re: Robert Langdon Litigation
Date: 9th September 2015
___________________________________________________________________________
Question Presented
Robert Landon a construction worker found an old wallet on top of an air duct behind the walls while renovating the second floor of Springfield College of Law. The wallet had $324 dated back to 1972 and no other identification cards. Would Langdon be successful in having the wallet declared to be “lost property” as opposed to “mislaid” and would he be entitled to the money as the finder of the wallet?
Brief Answer
Robert Langdon will not be successful in having the wallet declared as a lost property and he will have no claim to the money in the wallet. According to the general rule if the property is not found in plain sight and is concealed by some external barrier or there was a substantial effort required to find it, then the property is considered to be mislaid as opposed to lost. This is on the grounds that the owner of the property deliberately hid it in a place where it could not be found easily as opposed to lost property where the owner unintentionally loses his property. In the case of mislaid property, the possession of the property goes to the owner of the premises where it was found. Whereas in the case of lost property, if the property is not claimed by the owner within 12 months, the finder has the claim to the lost property. In this case, the cash was found in a wallet covered up on top of a pipe behind a divider which obviously demonstrates that the cash was concealed deliberately which implies that the property would be considered as misplaced. So in this situation the cash would be given over to the college and Langdon would not succeed in his case.
Statement of Facts
Robert Langdon, a construction worker, is an employee for Mason and Mason Construction Company. Currently, Mr. Langdon is working at the Springfield College of Law in Cleveland and his primary duty consists of putting plaster on the walls. In August of 2015, while working on the walls in the far back corner of the second floor, Mr. Langdon found a dusty a faded brown leather wallet sitting on top of a duct that was behind the wall. Inside the wallet, Langdon found $324 but no other items of identification and based on the dates on the currency, Langdon believed that the wallet had been between the walls since perhaps 1972. Langdon promptly reported the find to the construction foreman, who instructed Langdon to turn the wallet over to security at Springfield College of Law. Since the find, Langdon has inquired as to whether he would be entitled to the money as the finder of the “lost” property. He has been told that although no one has claimed the wallet, Springfield intends to hold onto the money as being “mislaid”. Langdon now seeks to have the wallet declared to be “lost” property.
Discussion
Found property can be classified into three categories, i.e. lost, mislaid and abandoned property. In this case, we look into two kinds of categories, lost and mislead property. In the case of lost property, the owner of the property involuntarily parts with his possession due to his carelessness or neglect or if the property has been stolen and returned by someone who did not participate in the theft. On the other hand if a property has been mislaid i.e. it has been intentionally and voluntarily been concealed by an exterior barrier by the owner. According to the common law, the lost property can be claimed by the finder of the property if within 12 months’ time the rightful owner does not claim it instead. In the case of mislaid property the object found belongs to the owner of the premise where it is found and not the finder. Hence the finder of a mislaid property has no rights over the property found by him. In the case of Robert Langdon the court has to determine whether the property found by Langdon was lost or mislaid. If it is a lost property the ownership would go to Langdon and if it is classified as mislaid property it will be given to Springfield College of Law. To determine the wallet as lost or mislaid property, the court would look at (1) the location where the wallet was found and (2) the manner in which the wallet had been hidden. This memo would address these two elements to determine whether Langdon would succeed in his claim or not.
Location where the wallet is found
To determine whether the wallet was a lost or mislaid property, the court will have look into the location where the wallet was found. The general rule is if the property is intentionally hidden from plain sight and concealed by an exterior barrier or some amount of effort had been put to find the property, then the property will be declared as mislaid. On the other hand if the property has been found in plain sight without any barrier whatsoever, the property is declared as lost.
This rule has been used in many similar cases such as – In Benjamin v Lindner Aviation, Inc, 534N.W.2d400 $1800 were found in packets hidden in panels on the underside of the wings. A drill had to be used to open the panel and discover the money. The court declared it to be a mislaid property and gave the justification that “The bills were carefully tied and wrapped and then concealed in a location that was accessible only by removing screws and a panel. These circumstances support an inference that the money was placed there intentionally.” Similarly in Terry v A.D.Lock, 342 Ark.452, 37S.W.3d202 the motel renovators needed to evacuate the roof tiles of a room to discover the box with the cash which obviously demonstrates that the money was kept there deliberately, out of the plain view which determines it to be mislaid property. However in the case of Toledo Trust Co. v. Simmons, 52 Ohio App.373, 3 N.E. 2d 661 $500 were found in an unsealed envelope by a bank representative on the floor of the entryway outside the security store vault. The envelope had no markings on it. Hence the court determined that it was a lost property since it was found in the lobby of a bank in plain sight. In the Robert Langdon case the wallet was found sitting on an air duct behind the second floor walls. This location is not somewhere one can accidently leave their wallet. This location was not in plain view hence the wallet will probably be declared as mislaid.
Manner in which the property has been hidden
The manner in which the lost property is hidden is also indicative of whether it is a lost or mislaid property. If the property is discovered shrouded or disguised in something like a container, wallet or handkerchief which makes it imperceptible from plain view then the property is said to be lost as it can be gathered that the property was covered up by the owner purposefully and deliberately. The property is thought to be lost on the basis that it is not disguised inside something and is in the plain view and is not secured by something then it can be construed that the owner lost ownership of the property involuntarily and unintentionally.
There are various precedents to support this rule. In Benjamin v Lindner Aviation, Inc, 534N.W.2d400 $18000 dollars were discovered hidden in aluminum foil; the cash was additionally tied with strings and secured with cloths. This unmistakably demonstrates that the cash was disguised from open and subsequently it was pronounced as misplaced property. In Terry v A.D.Lock, 342 Ark.452, 37S.W.3d202 the cash found in the roof in a cardboard box that was out of range unless there was generous exertion made to recover it. Since it was kept hidden in a box the owners purposefully meant to keep it there and thus it was proclaimed mislaid. In retrospect Toledo Trust Co. v. Simmons, 52 Ohio App.373, 3 N.E. 2d 661 the envelope was found unsealed in the lobby of a bank in plain sight of everyone to see. So the property was declared to be mislaid.
In the given case the wallet found will most likely be considered as misplaced property in light of the fact that the cash was put inside a wallet and placed on the air duct. This demonstrates that the owner proposed to disguise the property from plain view and possibly recover it later.
Conclusion
Since the wallet was found sitting on top of a duct that was behind the wall, this proves that the wallet was deliberately hidden out of plain sight and was concealed by an external barrier. This will help the court determine the property as a mislaid property as opposed to lost. The wallet being a mislaid property, Robert Langdon will not have any claim over the wallet or the money inside it. Since it is not a lost property, the rightful owner of the wallet will be the place where the property has been found and in this case it is Springfield College of Law. Thus Robert Langdon will not be successful in having the wallet declared to be “lost property” as opposed to “mislaid” and he would not be entitled to the money as the finder of the wallet.