Law Memo

Law Memo

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE: November 21, 2008
RE: Paul Chesire – Ownership of Personal Property
________________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Under Missouri law, which provides that for discovered property to be awarded to the finder the property must be classified as either lost or abandoned, does the property fall into either of these categories when the property was found buried with a note indicating the owner’s intent to return to the property?
II. Under Missouri law, which has never ruled on a case involving the treasure trove doctrine, will a Missouri court adopt the treasure trove doctrine when the property in question has all of the required elements of the doctrine?
III. Under Missouri law, which provides that abandoned property is awarded to an employee only if the employee was outside the scope of employment, is an employee outside the scope of employment when the job was to smooth out dirt but the employee decided to dig in the dirt instead?

BRIEF ANSWERS
I. No.   To be considered lost the evidence must clearly show that the property was involuntarily parted with. Because the pirate booty was buried, the true owner voluntarily placed it there. To be considered abandoned it must be apparent that the true owner had no intention of returning to claim the item. The note indicating the owner’s intent to return would convince a court that the property was not abandoned.
II. Probably Not.   Although the pirate booty has all of the elements of treasure trove, the modern trend among courts has been to abandon the treasure trove doctrine and deem the property embedded. The reasoning is that the treasure trove doctrine would invite trespassers onto private land in search for treasure.
III. Probably Not.   Although Mr. Grump never asked the two boys to dig a hole, a court would probably find that it was within the scope of employment because the boys were allowed to enter the land solely to...