Talk:Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property

Mislaid property

I'm unhappy about the quality of this whole article, but the section under "mislaid property" looks wrong to me. It cites precisely one authority McAvoy v. Medina, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 548, (1866) for the proposition that "If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises.". But the case cited says nothing of the kind. As far as I can see it held that the shopkeeper must hold the lost property for the person who is the owner, but that *someone else* who handed it into the shop could not in the circumstances of the case maintain a claim against the shopkeeper. Almost the opposite of what is said. The cases cited from McAvoy appear to contradict the section as well.

Is this an editor not understanding relativity of title? Unless anyone objects, I would suggest it should be deleted. Francis Davey (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbersome title

I realize that the title of this article is somewhat cumbersome, however I feel that people will be unlikely to look under the technical term of "dispossessed property", and I feel that the individual topics are not sufficient to warrant individual articles - but the whole illustrates the rich tapestry that is the common law. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:24, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Treasure trove

The category of "treasure trove" is no in here. I will try to add it. --Tony1343 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewards

The current article doesn't say anything about the (typical or legislated) reward for finding lost property. In German this is called Finderlohn, and is typically set to 5 or 10 percent of the value of the lost property. This German word directly translated to finder's fee, but is that term also used in English/American law? --LA2 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so far as I am aware. It would vary by jurisdiction, of course. bd2412 T 03:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A finders reward is not enforceable in many jurisdictions. In England for example a reward would be by a unilateral contract if the original owner chose to give one. by eg. putting up a "lost watch £500 reward" poster or newspaper advert. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obligation to return found property

Many places consider the finder of lost property to be a trustee, and under obligation to attempt to return the property. Is there a possibility of facing penalties if the finder doesn't? Would he be considered guilty of theft?

Citizen Premier (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this a bit and the answer is muddled. New York imposes a fine of up to a hundred dollars for failing to report found property, see John V. Orth, Reappraisals in the Law of Property (2000), p. 9, and the IRS requires it to be reported as income for tax purposes. However, keeping something that was not acquired unlawfully would not be considered theft, at least under the common law, because theft requires that the taking of the thing itself be unlawful, done with the intent of depriving its true owner of possession. Although a finder of lost property who fails to report it might in theory be subject to some misdemeanor sanction, that does not seem to affect their common law rights to become owners of the property. bd2412 T 22:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unclaimed Property" section - grammatical error

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

In the section "Unclaimed Property", the last sentence, "Some consumer reporting sites that conduct the research and assist consumers without charge or expense to the consumers." is grammatically incorrect (missing a proper predicate, I believe). It should either begin with something like "There are some consumer reporting sites...", or "and" should be changed to "also", or some other change needs to be made. As I am unsure of the author's intent with this sentence, I am also unsure of how to correct the problem so that the sentence reflects the intended meaning. As it currently stands, however, the sentence is incomplete and technically meaningless. This is my first request on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I have posted it incorrectly.

Globalize Tag

I have added a globalize tag to this article. This article is of generally low quality regarding the law in the USA (almost no actual legal content or authorities cited, no viable attempt to explain theft in relation to lost property, general over-reliance on the law of evidence rather than the common law among other issues.) This article is close enough to English law to give the impression that it might be correct to England, whereas it is not. This article is totally useless to situations that involve Common Law and Civil Law. For example South Africa. This article should be directed to show the correct way of dealing with lost property, police forces publish this legal procedure.currently it is close to encouraging people to commit theft. (finders keepers has no legal basis, nor does the quote regarding possession really assist this article (I am unsure it is relevant at all), unless it was classed as a requirement for evidence.)

A Guy into Books (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclaimed property

I’m looking for a phone number for unclaimed property 68.2.150.172 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]