Question for the ATOT Bar Association (or anyone else with 2 cents)

[swimscubasteve]

If I receive a deposit from a company that I know I wasn't supposed to get, is it legal to keep it if I receive no notice that they want it back?

Can I just hold on to the money for a while (2 years, statute of limitations) and then spend it?

The company that did this has caused me about 3 months of headaches and never even apologized for their actions so I have little remorse for them. I just am curious about the legal aspects of the situation.

 

[mooglekit]

I can't speak to the legal aspects specifically, but generally you are not allowed to profit from another's mistake.

 

[swimscubasteve]

?

 

[FoBoT]

no, mistakes do not equal ownership

 

[alrocky]

You've tried for 3 months to return the money and they haven't retrieved it? Giving back money that isn't yours shouldn't result in any headaches in any event.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: alrocky
You've tried for 3 months to return the money and they haven't retrieved it? Giving back money that isn't yours shouldn't result in any headaches in any event.

I haven't tried to return it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

sounds like CONVERSION to me, defined in CA as having the following elements: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of certain piece of property; (2) defendant's conversion of property by wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

The S.O.L. will likely be told to when the other party received actual or constructive notice.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
sounds like CONVERSION to me, defined in CA as having the following elements: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of certain piece of property; (2) defendant's conversion of property by wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

The S.O.L. will likely be told to when the other party received actual or constructive notice.

I would agree that this matter would fall under the purview of civil law however I would disagree with the act being Conversion. I was a passive party in the matter and have not been asked to return the funds.

This leads me to believe that after 2 years I will be in the clear and the money will be mine to keep.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
sounds like CONVERSION to me, defined in CA as having the following elements: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of certain piece of property; (2) defendant's conversion of property by wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

The S.O.L. will likely be told to when the other party received actual or constructive notice.

I would agree that this matter would fall under the purview of civil law however I would disagree with the act being Conversion. I was a passive party in the matter and have not been asked to return the funds.

This leads me to believe that after 2 years I will be in the clear and the money will be mine to keep.

but you are keeping from them the fact that they sent you this money. Failure to notify equates to concealing to me in this case. I could be wrong about this but I really do think that the S.O.L. will be tolled because Company X does not have any sort of notice about the funds.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
sounds like CONVERSION to me, defined in CA as having the following elements: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of certain piece of property; (2) defendant's conversion of property by wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Firoozye v. Earthlink Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

The S.O.L. will likely be told to when the other party received actual or constructive notice.

I would agree that this matter would fall under the purview of civil law however I would disagree with the act being Conversion. I was a passive party in the matter and have not been asked to return the funds.

This leads me to believe that after 2 years I will be in the clear and the money will be mine to keep.

but you are keeping from them the fact that they sent you this money. Failure to notify equates to concealing to me in this case. I could be wrong about this but I really do think that the S.O.L. will be tolled because Company X does not have any sort of notice about the funds.

I see your point. It does seem a bit of a reach though to claim a failure to notify as willful interference.

 

[Greenman]

Give the money back, just because it's the right thing to do.

 

[swimscubasteve]

any lawyers in the morning folk?