When renovating.. be careful

[Robatoy]

[Robatoy]

kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

[Upscale]

Buy a drink . . . . . . . . . . . . In Antigua.

[Robatoy]

Ha! *smirk*

[Richard Evans]

Seems to me the contractor had no more claim to any of it than he would have had uncovering a stash hidden by the current owner. I can't see the heirs having a claim either. For one thing, the money was part of the house when it was sold, and for another, surely there must be a statue of limitations on returning lost property.

Obviously, the lawyers disagree.

[-MIKE-]

Interesting.

"contractor Bob Kitts, who couldn't agree on how to split the money with homeowner..."

Ummm, how about 0:100 for the homeowner. Wow, what made this guy think he had any right to any of it?

If I'm taking out a vanity and find a diamond ring that fell behind it, what it the world would make me think I had any right to keep it?

Does this guy go through the couch cushions, too? :-)

[Puckdropper]

Richard Evans wrote in news: [e-mail]:

That's how I feel about it. Anything a contractor finds in the house belongs to the home owner. Just because it's hidden in a wall doesn't mean it's up for grabs.

The story mentioned the lady was going to declare bankruptcy, or at least testified to that in court? What's she doing remodeling anyway?

Puckdropper

[Not Bored Borg, Honest]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 01:33:34 +0000, Robatoy wrote (in article ):

well, last time I burned it.

[Bored Borg]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 03:30:21 +0000, MIKE- wrote (in article ):

In English law, the difference is that in one case it's "lost" and in the other, "hidden."

"Lost" is obviously the home-owners property. No argument.

Hidden stuff by parties deceased is "treasure trove" and is automatically property of the Crown. In practice, the finder usually gets a reward, which may even amount to the full value, but that is discretionary and by no means certain.

[Lew Hodgett]

kinda loot during a project?"

Finders keepers.

Lew

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

On closing day, after the fact, I once found 30 old silver dollars , boxed and tucked away under the kitchen sink of a house I'd just purchased in the Heights area of Houston. I immediately returned them to the seller that afternoon. The only thing I gained from that experience was the satisfaction of seeing the smile on the lady's face because she'd gotten her deceased husband's "coin collection" back, and the knowledge that I can't be bought for a mere $30 + appreciation ... however, add a goodly number more zeros and that might change ... maybe. :)

[-MIKE-]

This was in Cleveland, OH, USA, not England.

[-MIKE-]

You had a moment that made you think, even subconsciously, "What's my integrity worth?"

When situations like this arise, we do ourselves a good service to ask, "What is the price of my integrity?" I think most of us, if put in the situation in that news article, wouldn't put our integrity up for sale for $182,000.

[Swingman]

Nope, it never even crossed my mind to keep those coins, not for a second ... granted, there may have been a brief "thought" if it had been 30,000 old coins, but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever the outcome would have been the same.

As far as the contractor in this story ... the prick knows in his heart he never had a moral claim to money found on someone's property. If there is indeed a "legal" question about it, then you have in a nutshell one of the major issues in this culture - an erroneous distinction between morality and legality that gives weight to the latter - that is demonstrably bringing the country to its knees as we speak.

Just my tuppence ...

[Swingman]

"-MIKE-" wrote

But whose laws are derived mainly from English Common Law ...

[David G. Nagel]

Lawyers will disagree to your last dollar...

[Perry Aynum]

Just think of the time value of money. If he had invested that money in General Motors stock he'd have.....oh wait, never mind........

[Bored Borg]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 06:51:29 +0000, MIKE- wrote (in article ):

I know, but I was merely pointing out that moral responsibility, common sense and the legal position are not always congruent. Sometimes what would seem "obvious" and "correct" from a philosophical perspective, is downright wrong when ground down and reassembled by The Law. Were it not so, we would need no lawyers and ultimately no Law - just non-prejudicial contemplation

In other cases, the judicial process makes analysis of arguable issues easier

- but only within the bounds of the construct. It has no "absolute" value. If it had, the law in Cleveland, OH would be the same as in Manchester, England and Baghdad Iraq. That's a whole new can of worms - the argument for an absolute truth derived from whatever source is probably THE biggest issue in the world today and for the forseeable future. I don't think we, as a rec. group can afford to go there, particularly when we have piles of wet sawdust to find a use for.. and hanging prepositions about which to get pedantic.

Take the money..open the box.. take the money.. open the box...

You ARE the choices you make.

Peace 'n' Hugs.

[Swingman]

"David G. Nagel" wrote

LOL ... so pithy that I'm gonna be forced to violate your copyright on that one liner!

So sue me! :)

[-MIKE-]

The only "benefit of the doubt" I can attribute to situation, which I could not gather from the news articles I read, is that maybe it had something to do with her claiming bankruptcy. Maybe they were negotiating some kind of payment for the job, from the found money, but that never got described properly by any news agency.