• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Chiropteran said:
The fact that the money was in a home, by default, serves as evidence that it has an owner. Idiotic ruling.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. It's clearly abandoned property & therefore subject to the law of finds, at least in PA. Had the workmen not found it during demolition it'd still be there & the new homeowner none the wiser. It was obviously well hidden considering that the occupants of the previous 25 years never found it.

Dear bitter homeowner:

Them's the breaks. Deal with it.
 
Zorba said:
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?
Click to expand...
The difference between your example and the actual case is that the heirs to the estate of Frank Dubnansky (who almost certainly was the person who hid the $60,000) were not aware of the existence of the money, whereas a pair of outdoor speakers would be obviously known to the sellers of the house. It's clearly not reasonable to think that property mistakenly left in a house transfers with title to the house.
 
shira said:
The difference between your example and the actual case is that the heirs to the estate of Frank Dubnansky (who almost certainly was the person who hid the $60,000) were not aware of the existence of the money, whereas a pair of outdoor speakers would be obviously known to the sellers of the house. It's clearly not reasonable to think that property mistakenly left in a house transfers with title to the house.
Click to expand...

Then, the estate owns it, not a matter of finders keepers either way. Either it belongs to previous owner or the current owner, not any random person that happens upon it.

Although I agree with your premise that something forgotten in the house doesn't automatically transfer to the new owner, after a certain amount of time, it becomes abandoned property and the current owner of the house becomes the owner of that property.
 
Zorba said:
Then, the estate owns it, not a matter of finders keepers either way. Either it belongs to previous owner or the current owner, not any random person that happens upon it.

Although I agree with your premise that something forgotten in the house doesn't automatically transfer to the new owner, after a certain amount of time, it becomes abandoned property and the current owner of the house becomes the owner of that property.
Click to expand...

And that, essentially, is what the judge ruled. He wrote that the estate might have a claim against the workers, but that was beyond the scope of his ruling in the criminal case against the men.
 
Jhhnn said:
Oh, please. It's clearly abandoned property & therefore subject to the law of finds, at least in PA. Had the workmen not found it during demolition it'd still be there & the new homeowner none the wiser. It was obviously well hidden considering that the occupants of the previous 25 years never found it.

Dear bitter homeowner:

Them's the breaks. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You're one of those people who thinks the government owns all money and just lets you have some of it by their grace, aren't you?
 
Hidden money in your house? Sorry! You can not claim it!

They were workers, not the owners of the home - not sure what the butthurt rage is all about.
 
What if it wasn't money but maybe a hidden brand new waterheater located in the basement when there was already a fully functioning one servicing the home. Would that have been different?
 
Hacp said:
What if it wasn't money but maybe a hidden brand new waterheater located in the basement when there was already a fully functioning one servicing the home. Would that have been different?
Click to expand...
Or what if it was a container of ice cream in the freezer that allegedly had another owner?
 
allisolm said:
There is nothing in that article that says you can't claim hidden money in your house.
Click to expand...

After thinking a moment, I believe that is exactly what the article (or ruling) says.

The guy who owned the home wasn't allowed to claim the hidden money found in his house by the workers per the judge's ruling.

Fern
 
Fern said:
After thinking a moment, I believe that is exactly what the article (or ruling) says.

The guy who owned the home wasn't allowed to claim the hidden money found in his house by the workers per the judge's ruling.
Click to expand...

The way I read it, the judge's ruling does not address the current owner's claim on the money. The judge said that either a claim on the money by the current owner or one by the former owner's estate might indeed prevail over the workers' claim on it. His ruling only dealt with facing criminal charges for taking the money and was that the men should not face such charges. That's all it covered as far as I can tell. (I don't agree with his logic in making that decision, but I'm not a judge.)
 
I bet if it had been a hidden cache of drugs, the homeowner would have been hit with all sorts of drug charges and have the home confiscated via civil asset forfeiture.

Because that's how they roll here in PA.

I have a relative that had something like that happen to them.. Bought a house at a Sheriff / Tax sale, which is basically buying sight-unseen. Hired a contractor to clean out and remodel the place. Workers found signs of drug activity.. scales, packaging material, a couple of rusted out guns along with a small amount of weed - called the police, police arrived with a warrant and despite clear evidence the drug activity took place some time ago (the house was abandoned nearly a year), ended up arresting the homeowner and charged them with the manufacture and distribution of drugs. The D.A. also started proceedings to confiscate the house as well. Took nearly two years and all but bankrupted them to get cleared of all charges and get to keep the house.
 
Last edited:
unixwizzard said:
I bet if it had been a hidden cache of drugs, the homeowner would have been hit with all sorts of drug charges and have the home confiscated via civil asset forfeiture.

Because that's how they roll here in PA.

I have a relative that had something like that happen to them.. Bought a house at a Sheriff / Tax sale, which is basically buying sight-unseen. Hired a contractor to clean out and remodel the place. Workers found signs of drug activity.. scales, packaging material, a couple of rusted out guns along with a small amount of weed - called the police, police arrived with a warrant and ended up arresting the homeowner and charged them with the manufacture and distribution of drugs. The D.A. also started proceedings to confiscate the house as well. Took nearly two years and all but bankrupted them to get cleared of all charges and get to keep the house.
Click to expand...

thats full retard right there. why do thing have to spiral out of control like that when there is written proof that they had no part of it.
 
allisolm said:
The way I read it, the judge's ruling does not address the current owner's claim on the money. The judge said that either a claim on the money by the current owner or one by the former owner's estate might indeed prevail over the workers' claim on it. His ruling only dealt with facing criminal charges for taking the money and was that the men should not face such charges. That's all it covered as far as I can tell. (I don't agree with his logic in making that decision, but I'm not a judge.)
Click to expand...

Agreed. This article reveals more about the timeline of events-

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20141230/NEWS01/141239957#.VKom_cnzGCk

Smaracheck was apparently working for the estate in May-June of 2012 when the money was removed from the house by his laborers. He bought the house in August of 2012, after the money was gone. I can't see how he has any claim to it since he never possessed it. The estate may well have rightful claim, however. The whereabouts of the money & how much remains is undefined. The smart answer for the estate may simply be to settle for whatever there is rather than let the lawyers take it.

Given all the publicity, Smaracheck will likely end up with the IRS on his neck for paying under the table. Whether he intended to benefit the estate or himself is also unclear.
 
Jhhnn said:
Agreed. This article reveals more about the timeline of events-

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20141230/NEWS01/141239957#.VKom_cnzGCk

Smaracheck was apparently working for the estate in May-June of 2012 when the money was removed from the house by his laborers. He bought the house in August of 2012, after the money was gone. I can't see how he has any claim to it since he never possessed it. The estate may well have rightful claim, however. The whereabouts of the money & how much remains is undefined. The smart answer for the estate may simply be to settle for whatever there is rather than let the lawyers take it.

Given all the publicity, Smaracheck will likely end up with the IRS on his neck for paying under the table. Whether he intended to benefit the estate or himself is also unclear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see how he has a legit claim to the money.

BTW: Sounds like the workers were (sub) contractors. He wasn't there supervising them etc. If so, his responsibility ends with filing a 1099 on them. It's only the article that claims they paid under the table. I haven't noticed many, if any, journalists who know much about tax law.

Now the 4 guys who split the money have a 'real' tax issue.

Fern
 
The judge did not rule on the ownership of the money. What he ruled was to dismiss the criminal theft charges because the actual owner of the money is unknown. This will certainly continue in the civil courts to resolve the disputed ownership claims, with the estate likely having the most valid claim.
In real estate law in all 50 states, the purchase and sale of real property (immovable land and improvements) does not convey any personal property within unless specifically stated in the sales contract and/or deed.
 
Fern said:
Yeah, I don't see how he has a legit claim to the money.

BTW: Sounds like the workers were (sub) contractors. He wasn't there supervising them etc. If so, his responsibility ends with filing a 1099 on them. It's only the article that claims they paid under the table. I haven't noticed many, if any, journalists who know much about tax law.

Now the 4 guys who split the money have a 'real' tax issue.

Fern
Click to expand...
Bigger issues than that. If they were subs, they're probably having a time finding work due to loss of reputation. General contractors don't like to hire subs who steal, and word of that usually gets around fast.
And if the estate wins the money and they've already spent it..
 
child of wonder said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about a kilo of coke the previous owner hid in the wall? You own that? Is that now possession and grounds for arrest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top