The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-27-2005, 09:05 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,267
If you find buried treasure, can you keep it?

From this story

Basically, a guy was digging up a tree in his own backyard and found a box with money, bank notes, and gold and silver certificates that appears to have been there since at least the 1930's. The value has been estimated at between $50,000 & $100,000.

From the story, it certainly sound like the money is now his. Two questions - will he have to pay income taxes on it? It was part of the property he bought, so one point of view is that he wouldn't have to pay taxes any more than he'd pay taxes on an old stove that came with the house as well.

Second question - could previous owners of the property sue to get the money? If it's really from the 1930's, it's doubtful the person who actually buried it will come forward, but could the person who sold him the property sue on some sort of grounds that if he had known the money was present, he would have removed it himself? How about if you found something that was buried 10 years ago by the person who sold you the house? Could he sue to retrieve it, or once he's sold the house, has he released all claims to anything on the property?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-27-2005, 09:17 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,065
Well, Federal Treasure Trove law states:

"Finder of treasure trove, which is defined as coin, gold, silver plate, bullion, or similar articles hidden for safe-keeping and forgotten, or remaining undiscovered by reason of death of person who hid them, is entitled thereto as AGAINST owner of land where treasure trove is found and all the world save the true owner, in absence of statute, but owner is entitled to property, other than treasure trove embedded in his soil. It is the HIDING and not the losing or abandon-ing of property which gives it its character of treasure trove. (Groover vs. Tippins, 179 S.E. 634, 635, 51 Ga. App. 47.)"

I read that and other law to state that a0 it's his unless the true owners show up to claim it, and b) the previous owner of the land is SOL.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2005, 10:31 AM
SpaceDog SpaceDog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus
I read that and other law to state that a0 it's his unless the true owners show up to claim it, and b) the previous owner of the land is SOL.
Related question then. If I'm tracking an old pirate treasure and I'm 100% postive I've found the location (maybe I've snuck in and had a dig to double check). Now I don't own the land it's in but I buy that land off the current owner for more than the land is worth but less than the treasure is worth.

I dig up the treasure, sell the land and the treasure and pocket the difference.

Now, am I guilty of a crime? Is this just exactly the same case as before? Can the previous owner argue I should have disclosed information about the treasure.

Common sense suggests that there's no real difference although it seems ethically dubious. What's the legal postion?

SD
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-27-2005, 10:38 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,065
IANAL, but I would assume that you are under no legal obligation to inform the previous owner of jack before buying the land. The same principle would apply if I suspected that there was oil under a certain piece of property...buy it before the owner gets wind of the geologist's report.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-27-2005, 11:33 AM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceDog
Now, am I guilty of a crime? Is this just exactly the same case as before? Can the previous owner argue I should have disclosed information about the treasure.

Common sense suggests that there's no real difference although it seems ethically dubious. What's the legal postion?
I don't know about the law, but Jesus would apparently approve of this. One of his parables deals with a man who finds buried treasure, and then sells everything he owns so he can afford to buy the land that the treasure is hidden on.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2005, 11:40 AM
Chefguy Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 29,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceDog
Related question then. If I'm tracking an old pirate treasure and I'm 100% postive I've found the location (maybe I've snuck in and had a dig to double check). Now I don't own the land it's in but I buy that land off the current owner for more than the land is worth but less than the treasure is worth.

I dig up the treasure, sell the land and the treasure and pocket the difference.

Now, am I guilty of a crime? Is this just exactly the same case as before? Can the previous owner argue I should have disclosed information about the treasure.

Common sense suggests that there's no real difference although it seems ethically dubious. What's the legal postion?

SD
Oil companies and mining companies do it all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2005, 02:23 PM
MikeS MikeS is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New London, CT
Posts: 3,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus
"Finder of treasure trove, which is defined as coin, gold, silver plate, bullion, or similar articles hidden for safe-keeping and forgotten, or remaining undiscovered by reason of death of person who hid them, is entitled thereto as AGAINST owner of land where treasure trove is found and all the world save the true owner, in absence of statute, but owner is entitled to property, other than treasure trove embedded in his soil. It is the HIDING and not the losing or abandon-ing of property which gives it its character of treasure trove. (Groover vs. Tippins, 179 S.E. 634, 635, 51 Ga. App. 47.)"
(bolding mine)

Am I reading this correctly to say, further, that if I find a treasure trove on someone else's land it's mine to keep (instead of the current owner's)?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-27-2005, 02:41 PM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,065
Seems to read that way to me as well.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-27-2005, 03:29 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Here is an article by a law professor, and author of law textbooks about property law.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/trove/

Quote:
The majority of U.S. courts now follow a mislaid rule for buried objects, which posits that items purposely deposited should be protected until the original depositor can return. The preferable way to protect them is to allow the items to remain in the custody of the landowner on whose property they were discovered. It's a convenient rationale, arguably well designed to assure the best chance to reunite owners with their recently "misplaced" goods.
. . . .

Quote:
By rejecting treasure trove and similar finder's rationales, those courts have fostered legal policies that discourage waton trespass to real property, and give protection to a landowner's possessory claims to any artifacts that have been so embedded in the land as to become part of it. Rejection of the rules that reward finders at the expense of landowners also strengthens anti-looting provisions, and discourages casual, but potentially destructive unplanned searches. Indeed, removal of artifacts from the soil is now recognized in the majority of states either as illegal severance of chattels, trespass, or theft. Modern law has recognized and resolved the problem, leaving no room for royal prerogatives. The old rule of treasure trove may make good theater, but it's poor law, and its death can come none too soon.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-27-2005, 03:50 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
And don't forget. A trespasser is a trespasser. It's one thing if you are digging on land with the owner's permission. If you do it without permission, you are crimally and civilly liable.


Quote:
I dig up the treasure, sell the land and the treasure and pocket the difference.
Now, am I guilty of a crime? Is this just exactly the same case as before? Can the previous owner argue I should have disclosed information about the treasure.
This is a case of caveat vendor. The seller has the ability to inspect the promised land as thoroughly as the seller wants before the price is set. So if the price is too low, the law has little sympathy for the seller.

The true owner of the treasure is the last person to acquire it legally, so the fact that the land owner had an ichoate claim to the treasure is not significant.

Here's an extra credit answer for you. Nobody can sue the finder of the property for possession of the treasure based on the theory that the finder has defective title because the finder is not the true owner. This is known as the jus tertii argument--you can't set up a claim to property based on the rights of third parties. Cf. http://www.idc.ac.il//publications/files/125.pdf (especially footnote 7).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-27-2005, 04:01 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
For those who still have a morbid curiosity about the law of finders. Here is a sample law school property exam and a set of model answers to question number 6, which deals with the finders-keepers rule and the jus tertii doctrine.

And here is a good article about the law of finders, generally.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-27-2005, 04:42 PM
Gary "Wombat" Robson Gary "Wombat" Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief
Two questions - will he have to pay income taxes on it?
In the U.S., yes.

If you buy something for $100, split it in half, and sell the two halves for $75 each, you have to pay income taxes on $50 in profit.

If you buy a hunk of land, find a buried treasure on it worth $100,000, sell the land for what you paid for it, and sell the treasure for $100K, you'll have a profit of $100K to pay taxes on.
__________________
---
Yes, I have joined the ranks of former moderators. Being a mod was eating my life. Now I'm a member just like you. Except smarter and better looking.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-27-2005, 05:22 PM
Balthisar Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nanjing, China
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat
If you buy something for $100, split it in half, and sell the two halves for $75 each, you have to pay income taxes on $50 in profit.

If you buy a hunk of land, find a buried treasure on it worth $100,000, sell the land for what you paid for it, and sell the treasure for $100K, you'll have a profit of $100K to pay taxes on.
Hmmm… I don't know if that applies to the land and treasure. The land value is the same when you sell it in your scenario, so there's no capital gain (it wouldn't be income tax because it's personal real property). Also you're not "splitting" property; you're keeping it as one whole unit. Essentially, I think we can ignore the property, whether you sell it even or for a profit, or just keep it. The issue, then, is only the $100,000. Is it income, or is it a product of the land? Is it income only when you spend it, or when you find it? Suppose it's gold; is it income upon discovery upon conversion to cash? Or is it not even income? And what if it's gold, but not in bar form; only mineral wealth. The value is still there in the ore; you've just not taken it out and tried to sell it yet. I have apple trees. Once they start giving apples, do I need to claim them on my income tax if I eat them? After all, it's income in the sense that I'm not spending money to purchase other apples, just like I'm not spending money to acquire the gold that someone left.

Okay, if it's ore, and you don't extract it, then the land increases in value. Capital gain. Apples? If they look nice, then capital gain. If it's processed gold or cash, can you just NOT claim it as income, and then sell the property to someone else? You buy it for $100,000, and advertise it such: Buy this house, $100,000 included as part of the property. You sell for $200,000. Now you have a $100,000 capital gain rather than income, and at this level, tax free! What if it's not cash, but gold bars? You never got the income; they're part of the property!

Tax attorneys here?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-29-2005, 09:21 AM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Oh, and the I found all this money in my back yard--it was buried treasure-- dodge doesn't work.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/29/bur....ap/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-29-2005, 02:07 PM
Gary "Wombat" Robson Gary "Wombat" Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar
Hmmm… I don't know if that applies to the land and treasure. The land value is the same when you sell it in your scenario, so there's no capital gain (it wouldn't be income tax because it's personal real property). Also you're not "splitting" property; you're keeping it as one whole unit.
First off, value matters not. Only price matters. The IRS doesn't care what the property is worth. They only care about the difference between the purchase price and the selling price.

As for this specific situation, don't think of it as real estate. Think of it as stuff. You bought $100K worth of stuff (land and treasure). You sold some of the stuff (the land) for $100K, and then sold the rest of the stuff (the treasure) for $100K. You bought your stuff for $100K and sold your stuff for $200K.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-29-2005, 02:58 PM
Quercus Quercus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
FWIW, and possibly of interest as going to the Treasure Trove vs Landowner's doctrine, the men have now been arrested. http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...uried_treasure
Police believe that they actually found the bills in another person's house while they were doing a roofing job on the house. Evidently the police are working on the legal theory that finders <> keepers.

To make the story even more interesting, an article this morning (not the one linked) said that one of the guys was on probation for counterfeiting..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-29-2005, 06:35 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,649
Ooh, I saw that on the news the other day. All those different kinds of money they used to have -- gold and silver certificates, commercial bank notes, and so on--are fascinating to me. Not to mention the gold and silver coins as well. Now all the currency we have is boring and homogenous, and the coins are worth so laughably little we don't even bother to carry them around any more.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-30-2005, 01:03 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar

Tax attorneys here?
I'm not a tax attorney, but my dad is. According to him, for found treasure (assuming you didn't know it existed when you bought the property), you would probably not be permitted to allocate your basis (the purchase price of the property) between the treasure and the property. If, as some of the hypos above suggest, you knew that the treasure was there when you bought the property, you might be permitted to allocate the basis.

Much of the following is my own WAG or stuff I heard in law school.

Unmined minerals are not personal income. You get no financial benefit from them until you either mine and sell them or sell the rights to them. Income would be recognized upon either of these events.

If you find cash on your property you have realized income. If you sell it, it will be at face value. There is no reason to delay taxation.

If you find gold, collectible coins, or stock certificates, you will be taxed upon their sale.

Apples and other crops are not income if consumed by the grower.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-30-2005, 06:14 PM
ltfire ltfire is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: E 161 St. and River Ave.
Posts: 1,761
Heh..bottom line, then, if you find a treasure, and the true owner is unknown, learn the following...Shut Up!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-02-2005, 10:59 AM
rainy rainy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 899
Alright, so here is a hypothetical question about the outcome of this case.



These guys are arrested, the police charge they stole the money from a barn.

Now if the barn owner has nothing to verify the money is his -- which I'm assuming he won't since it was safely tucked in rusty tin cans.

They go to trial but the jury returns an innocent verdict.



If they aren't convicted of anything, does the treasure then belong to them to do whatever (legally) they wish to with it?

-rainy
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-03-2005, 08:26 AM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,649
This thread probably deserves to be bumped in view of recent developments.

Perhaps the mods should change the title to: "If you steal someone's currency collection, bury it, then dig it up and claim it's treasure trove, then can you keep it? "

Men who claimed to find buried treasure arrested

It would appear the answer is a resounding NO!.

God, what scumbags.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-03-2005, 09:11 AM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy

If they aren't convicted of anything, does the treasure then belong to them to do whatever (legally) they wish to with it?

-rainy
1. Acquittal of a criminal charge carries little weight in a civil case. Indeed, it's probably not even admissible. The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than in a civil case.

Quote:
"[The acquittal did] not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.... [T]he jury verdict in the criminal action did not negate the possibility that a preponderance of the evidence could show that [the defendant] was engaged in an unlicensed firearms business.... It is clear that the difference in the relative burdens of proof in the criminal and civil actions precludes the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/publicati...es/dowling.htm

And see
the OJ civil case .

2. Whether or not they were acquitted, the case boils down to some old fashioned property law, discussed in my earlier posts.

The prior possessor of property wins against a subsequent holder of the property and the subsequent holder may not assert lack of good title to the property as a defense (this is called jus tertii) against a prior possessor.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2006, 02:08 PM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,267
A judge recently dismissed the charges. No indication from the story whether they get to keep the money. According to the video linked from the story, the defense attorney successfully argued that since the owner of the barn wasn't aware of the existence of the money, it was abandoned property.



(Note - I received permission from Moderator samclem to resurrect this thread).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2006, 03:15 PM
Gfactor Gfactor is offline
of the Gladiators
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,491
Legally that's gibberish. How does the property owner's ignorance show that somebody else intended to abandon the money? And I think it's pretty clear that the defendant's thought they were taking the barn owner's money. If they hadn't, they could have taken advantage of the Massachusett's lost property statute, and had the money within a year. If they took what they believed to be somebody else's property, they could still be convicted of attempted larceny.

Quote:
§ 1. Report of lost money or goods by finder

Any person who finds lost money or goods of the value of three dollars or more, the owner of which is unknown, shall within two days report the finding thereof to the officer in charge at a police station in the town where said property was found, or, if there is no police station, post notice thereof in two public places therein, or, instead of such report or posting, cause notice thereof to be advertised in a newspaper published therein.

. . . .

§ 4. Rights of finder if no owner appears

If the owner of lost money or goods does not appear within one year after the finding thereof, they shall enure to the finder, provided he has complied with section one.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/s...134_1_7.htm#s1
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-14-2006, 03:38 PM
Captain Carrot Captain Carrot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus
Ooh, I saw that on the news the other day. All those different kinds of money they used to have -- gold and silver certificates, commercial bank notes, and so on--are fascinating to me. Not to mention the gold and silver coins as well. Now all the currency we have is boring and homogenous, and the coins are worth so laughably little we don't even bother to carry them around any more.
Well, that's not the only reason. Coins are heavy, harder to store (bills can be folded)
and hard. If we still had $20 coins, people might well not carry them.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-14-2006, 05:13 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,146
Quote:
Am I reading this correctly to say, further, that if I find a treasure trove on someone else's land it's mine to keep (instead of the current owner's)?
As I understand the (original, common law) treasure trove concept, it is necessary that the finder be on the property legally in the first place. But of course, although US law is largely based on the old Common Law, it's not absolutely bound by it, and legislators can pass further laws contrary to it.

Roald Dahl wrote a fascinating non-fiction account of a case in England where a man hired to plow a field found, in the course of his plowing, a stash of silver tableware dating back to Roman times. Unfortunately, he was cheated out of the treasure (or more precisely, out of its value, since British law requires that gold or silver treasure trove be turned over to the government for just compensation) by an unscrupulous neighbor who told him that it was just pewter, and worth nothing other than as a pretty little conversation piece.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.