Hidden money in your house? Sorry! You can not claim it!

[inachu]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...228731.html?_osource=outbrain_recirc=obinsite


Nice!

 

[allisolm]

There is nothing in that article that says you can't claim hidden money in your house.

 

[NetGuySC]

IMHO, It saids that if anyone finds and takes money in your home that you didn't know existed, then you have no claim to that money.

 

[Strk]

I'm guessing you never read the article? For starters, it wasn't their money in the first place. They also had the charges dropped.

 

[shortylickens]

Unrelated:

I keep telling my mom to put her old jewelry in a bank box instead of that fake 7-UP can in the garage. Ditto the social security cards, passports, and birth certificates.

 

[rpsgc]

I suppose burglars can now claim that the money they just stole was actually hidden and thus it's just a case of 'finders, keepers'. Really? That's how retarded that judge's decision was.


But but but that's not the saaaaaame!
Precedent.

 

[child of wonder]

When you buy a home you only really own the parts of the home and things inside it you are aware exists?

When someone purchases a home it should be assumed everything in it belongs to the new owner.

 

[Strk]

When you buy a home you only really own the parts of the home and things inside it you are aware exists?

When someone purchases a home it should be assumed everything in it belongs to the new owner.

Except even that logic fails in this case. The people who found it were laborers. They owned nothing in this case.

 

[leper84]

I'm guessing you never read the article? For starters, it wasn't their money in the first place. They also had the charges dropped.

How was it not their money? They owned the house. They owned everything inside the house. They have a deed or title showing the money was a part of their property. The laborers have zero claim other than blindly stumbling upon it, inside of someone else's property.

So I'm doing work to your car. I see $100 bill under the seat you didn't know about. How do you react when I pocket it and try and keep that ish?

 

[Strk]

How was it not their money? They owned the house. They owned everything inside the house. They have a deed or title showing the money was a part of their property. The laborers have zero claim other than blindly stumbling upon it, inside of someone else's property.

So I'm doing work to your car. I see $100 bill under the seat you didn't know about. How do you react when I pocket it and try and keep that ish?

Seriously, read the article. I'll even help you out with the two important quotes:

The judge's opinion says the four were working as under-the-table laborers, fixing up an unoccupied house

and....

The man they were working for learned of the money and reported them to police.

The four guys had zero stake in the house. Also, you're basically contradicting yourself. The laborers found the money and kept it, not the [new] owner.

 

[shira]

IMHO, It saids that if anyone finds and takes money in your home that you didn't know existed, then you have no claim to that money.

Actually, what the ruling said was that if a person who is legally inside a house finds money there for which there is no evidence of the true owner, then taking the money doesn't constitute a crime. In that situation, anyone finding the money (including the homeowner) could keep it unless someone else could prove that they were the true owners of the money (such as the estate of the previous homeowner).

Not knowing that the money is there doesn't mean that you aren't the true owner of the money. For example, if your parents were the only owners of a home, and you inherited it from them, then if subsequently the money is found there hidden behind the walls by a contractor you hire, there's pretty strong evidence that you are the owner of the money.

 

[Zorba]

Actually, what the ruling said was that if a person who is legally inside a house finds money there for which there is no evidence of the true owner, then taking the money doesn't constitute a crime. In that situation, anyone finding the money (including the homeowner) could keep it unless someone else could prove that they were the true owners of the money (such as the estate of the previous homeowner).

Not knowing that the money is there doesn't mean that you aren't the true owner of the money. For example, if your parents were the only owners of a home, and you inherited it from them, then if subsequently the money is found there hidden behind the walls by a contractor you hire, there's pretty strong evidence that you are the owner of the money.

In that case shouldn't they have taken the money to police station and waited 30 days to see if someone claimed it? Like you would any found property?

I say the logic it BS. Whoever owns the house, owns everything "found" with in it. If the house had no owners or the owners couldn't be found, maybe the judge's ruling would make sense. I mean this isn't maritime salvage, they are remodeling a house.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Dude they were working in the house. They did not own the house.
Can I come over to your place to find stuff then call it mine?

 

[master_shake_]

one stupid judge sets a precedent.

amazing

 

[OutHouse]

So the guy the 4 laborers were working for did not owin the house?

 

[MongGrel]

So then, I guess the government really doesn't have a case when the guys salvaging treasure ships find something.

And would say even more so in that case than these guys.

Should be the owners property.

 

[Strk]

So the guy the 4 laborers were working for did not owin the house?

Unless the article is missing something, the guy they were working for was never included. The four laborers just took the money for themselves.

 

[shira]

In that case shouldn't they have taken the money to police station and waited 30 days to see if someone claimed it? Like you would any found property?

I say the logic it BS. Whoever owns the house, owns everything "found" with in it. If the house had no owners or the owners couldn't be found, maybe the judge's ruling would make sense. I mean this isn't maritime salvage, they are remodeling a house.

No. I think the proper thing to do do would have been to bring the money to the police and tell them where the money was found; the police would then notify both the current and previous owners of the house. If none of the owners could provide reasonable evidence that the money was theirs, the money would go to the workers.

The article pointed out that the sales contract for the home didn't explicitly transfer ownership of everything in the home, so ownership of the money wouldn't have transferred with the home.

 

[shira]

So then, I guess the government really doesn't have a case when the guys salvaging treasure ships find something.
And would say even more so in that case than these guys.

Should be the owners property.

Not true. If the salvaged ship can be identified, it would be fairly straightforward to determine ownership of the vessel. Of course, there may be special "laws of the sea" that define what the ownership rights are for salvaged, long-lost property.

 

[shira]

one stupid judge sets a precedent.

amazing

One lower-level judge doesn't set a precedent. The judge merely interpreted the law as written.

 

[Zorba]

No. I think the proper thing to do do would have been to bring the money to the police and tell them where the money was found; the police would then notify both the current and previous owners of the house. If none of the owners could provide reasonable evidence that the money was theirs, the money would go to the workers.

The article pointed out that the sales contract for the home didn't explicitly transfer ownership of everything in the home, so ownership of the money wouldn't have transferred with the home.

Unless the contract specifically stated property not transferred, it is assumed everything left in the house is transferred to the new owner. The previous owner of this house left some outdoor speakers that were not specifically in the contract, does that mean you can come steal them and claim them as your own?

 

[Jhhnn]

The "law of finds" varies by State. It's "finders keepers" in many places. Apparently PA is one of them.

"Mah Proppity!" doesn't always mean what you want it to mean.

 

[1prophet]

The judge's opinion says the four were working as under-the-table laborers, fixing up an unoccupied house, when they found the money hidden in a second-floor dormer. The newest bills dated to the 1980s.

So did the person they worked for have the IRS and other applicable labor and tax agencies notified about his use of "under the table laborers"?:biggrin:

​

 

[Chiropteran]

Actually, what the ruling said was that if a person who is legally inside a house finds money there for which there is no evidence of the true owner, then taking the money doesn't constitute a crime.

The fact that the money was in a home, by default, serves as evidence that it has an owner. Idiotic ruling.

 

[DrPizza]

The "law of finds" varies by State. It's "finders keepers" in many places. Apparently PA is one of them.

"Mah Proppity!" doesn't always mean what you want it to mean.

Sweet! Does this mean I can cross over the border into PA, and find things on state land that the state doesn't know exists?