http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

On Nov 8, 8:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

"Robatoy" wrote in message
I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU
do if you found that kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

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

On Nov 8, 8:53*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU
do if you found that kinda loot during a project?"
Be honest now.....

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

Ha! *smirk*

Robatoy wrote:

On Nov 8, 8:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

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.

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 8, 8:26 pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....


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? :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Richard Evans wrote in
:

Robatoy wrote:

On Nov 8, 8:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

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.

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
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

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

On Nov 8, 8:26*pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

well, last time I burned it.

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

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? :-)




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.

"Robatoy" wrote:

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

Finders keepers.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote

I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

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.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

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.


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


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Swingman 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.



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.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
Swingman 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.



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

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 ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"-MIKE-" wrote
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.


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

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

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Richard Evans wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

On Nov 8, 8:26 pm, Robatoy wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/637xmt
I forgot to pose the question: "What would YOU do if you found that
kinda loot during a project?"

Be honest now.....

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.

Lawyers will disagree to your last dollar...

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........

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

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

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.

"David G. Nagel" wrote

Lawyers will disagree to your last dollar...

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

So sue me!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
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 ...


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.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Swingman wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote
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.

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

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


Um.... yeah, ok.

"Officer, they drive on the left side of the road in England and since
our laws are derived from English Common Law... hey, do we really need
handcuffs here?"


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Obviously, the lawyers disagree.

Lawyers will disagree to your last dollar...


They always seem to come up with a settlement about the time you're out
of money. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

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

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

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.


Yes, those paragraphs and my reply require a cup of coffee and some face
time. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:

Swingman 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.



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.


In one case, the $30 was returned to its rightful owner. The rightful
owner of the $182k was long dead. The contractor's duty was to give it
to the homeowner. If I were the homeowner, I'd feel no obligation to
track down the heirs of the original owner. Or track them down, give
them the money, then charge them $182k storage fee.

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.


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.


In one case, the $30 was returned to its rightful owner. The rightful
owner of the $182k was long dead. The contractor's duty was to give it
to the homeowner. If I were the homeowner, I'd feel no obligation to
track down the heirs of the original owner. Or track them down, give
them the money, then charge them $182k storage fee.


I've been talking about the contractor this whole time, but homeowner's
part in this is an interesting discussion.

Just thinking out loud...
I would say that anything that is inside the internal structure of a
house is part of the house. You buy the house, you are buying what's in
the walls. It's the previous owner's responsibility to know what's in
there. It's not like a safe inside a wall, behind a picture that some
old lady with Alzheimer's forgot about. But then again, it's not an
integral part of the structure.

Imagine if copper were to go up in price to match the value of gold in a
hundred years and power is all wireless, you could see some interesting
homeowner/contractor confrontations, when 50-75 year old walls are torn
down to reveals thousands of dollars worth of Romex. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Bored Borg wrote:

.... snip

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.

Hmm, seems if I found something like that in that case, I'd be inclined
to leave it "lost". Just plaster it back up and let subsequent
generations, perhaps a bit more enlightened find it.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough