Cash found in Ohio house's walls becomes nightmare

[Story]

Couldn't find the other threads with 'Golden Age stuff found hidden in walls', so here goes:

CLEVELAND (AP) -- A contractor who found $182,000 in Depression-era currency hidden in a bathroom wall has ended up with only a few thousand dollars, but he feels some vindication.

The windfall discovery amounted to little more than grief for contractor Bob Kitts, who couldn't agree on how to split the money with homeowner Amanda Reece.

It didn't help Reece much, either. She testified in a deposition that she was considering bankruptcy and that a bank recently foreclosed on one of her properties.

And 21 descendants of Patrick Dunne - the wealthy businessman who stashed the money that was minted in a time of bank collapses and joblessness - will each get a mere fraction of the find.

Complete story at
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dyna...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-11-08-14-55-45

 

[warbird]

Lesson learned, if you find something like this work it out with the immediate parties, the family etc and keep your mouth shut. Don't go to the media with such a story. And it truth the family of the home owner of the time should have gotten nothing.

It is the duty of the homeowner to get everything that is theirs and will leave with the house and take it before vacating premises. The money was part of the property which was purchased.

And in reality I'm not sure why the contractor even had any say in this. If he had taken the money it would have been stealing. Just because he found it does not make it his. It isn't buried treasure. If someone finds money in my mattress when moving it to clean behind it, it doesnt make it theirs. She might have only offered him a share for finding it, but no obligation to do so.

 

[Paisley]

Yes, I don't see why the contractor was entitled to any of the money or what business he had opening the lockboxes he found. The only thing I can think of is that the homeowner owed him money since she was near bankruptcy.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I read an article about this elsewhere on the net.

The home owner had offered the contractor 10% - which is about $18K. However, the contractor thought 40% was fair, so that's why the lawyers got involved.

The best part is, in that other article, the contractor was lamenting how this whole case hurt his business and damaged his reputation; it seems people think he's a greedy opportunist and therefore don't want to employee him. Go figure?

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Well, duh!

I read an article about this elsewhere on the net.

The home owner had offered the contractor 10% - which is about $18K. However, the contractor thought 40% was fair, so that's why the lawyers got involved.

The best part is, in that other article, the contractor was lamenting how this whole case hurt his business and damaged his reputation; it seems people think he's a greedy opportunist and therefore don't want to employee him. Go figure?

This should have been a slam-dunk. The "home owner" owns the home and everything on the property after the purchase transaction is completed. The "contractor" is just that, a contracted vendor. He has no right and no claim on anything other than his tools, his personel, and the items agreed in the contract.

It sounds as if the home-owner is rather naive and is either being bullied by the contractor or perhaps, is in some closer relationship with him than just contractually (friend, relative, etc.).

If she were smart she'd cut him off completely and let him take her to court. Judge Wopner would dismiss that case in a heartbeat!

-dixon cannon

 

[adamjaskie]

I think it's pretty nice of her to offer him 10%. He should be grateful she offered him anything at all.

 

[Guttersnipe]

This should have been a slam-dunk. The "home owner" owns the home and everything on the property after the purchase transaction is completed. The "contractor" is just that, a contracted vendor. He has no right and no claim on anything other than his tools, his personel, and the items agreed in the contract.

It sounds as if the home-owner is rather naive and is either being bullied by the contractor or perhaps, is in some closer relationship with him than just contractually (friend, relative, etc.).

If she were smart she'd cut him off completely and let him take her to court. Judge Wopner would dismiss that case in a heartbeat!

-dixon cannon

She did take him to court! And, because of the publicity surrounding the case, the decedents of the guy who stashed the money there originally found out about the cash and wanted a share to.

The result of the lawsuit was that the money got split up 23 ways!

 

[Undertow]

I think the key here is "He called Reece, a former high school classmate who had hired him for a remodeling project."

She probably felt generous and he was greedy.

That guy doesn't deserve a single penny, legality aside. I think he deserves the bad publicity.

 

[reetpleat]

I think the contractor should have been happy for his client, and even happier that she offered him ten percent. That would have been a windfall.

As far as ownership. I am no lawyer, but I am a real estate agent. Currently, when you sell a property, the contract says anything left by the seller becomes property of the owner. But i am sure that when the contract to sell the house many years ago was done, it likely did not contain such a clause. or maybe it did.

I could certainly see the legal claim of the heirs. he sold a house, not his money.

If I were a judge, I would probably have given half to the heirs, half to the home owner, and let the homeowner and heirs decide if they wanted to gie him a finders fee.

And i think he should have gotten one for being honest, but then lost it for being greedy.

 

[Paisley]

CNN Money says that the heirs were entitled to the money found in envelopes bearing their ancestor's name.

As for the rest, the homeowner said some of the money was stolen but she never reported it to the police, she was near bankruptcy but never filed, she had a case but dropped it, had a phone but it was cut off...she sounds like a flake. I'm sure there's some part of the case we're not hearing about.

 

[mannySpaghetti]

She should have had the contractor put in the lock boxes and sealed him in the wall.

 

[Story]

Some of the other articles I wasn't able to find here -

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/Jan/11/hidden-counterfeit-plates-spark-investigation/

What began as an innocent remodeling project by a Wichita Falls family a week ago ended up involving the police, the FBI and the Secret Service — and the uncovering of a mystery that might have been sealed away for nearly 80 years.

Harold Hawkins, a property manager and former member of the City Council, purchased an old house on Bailey Road a few years ago to use as a rent house. His son, Mitchell, decided to move his family into it recently.

In the process of adding a closet, Mitchell Hawkins broke through a wall and made a startling discovery. Sealed into the wall was an old $20 bill — and something wrapped in yellowing newspaper. What Mitchell discovered when he opened the paper was five glass plates for making $20 bills.

The plates bore the markings “First National Bank of Fort Worth” and “1929,” Harold Hawkins said. During that era, currency was often imprinted with the name of the issuing bank. The newspaper the plates were wrapped in was dated 1932.

 

[Undertow]

Holy Mackeral! Wouldn't that be a find!

 

[Brinybay]

Couldn't find the other threads with 'Golden Age stuff found hidden in walls', so here goes:

CLEVELAND (AP) -- A contractor who found $182,000 in Depression-era currency hidden in a bathroom wall has ended up with only a few thousand dollars, but he feels some vindication.

The contractor was a jerk. The only part I don't fault him for is for opening the boxes, that was just natural curiosity. Can any of us say we would have just set aside a couple locked boxes found hidden in a wall? He started out right by telling the owner about it. Sad to say, there are probably more than a few who wouldn't have done that.

 

[Lincsong]

:rage: Well, the lawyers made out.:rage:

 

[DecoDahlia]

Something Similar On A Smaller Scale

Something akin to the money found in the walls of an old house recently happened to my father. My grandfather's papers were donated to The Huntington Library in San Marino, California (here's the backstory on that;

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/18/local/me-chinatown18).

So, The Huntington contacts my father and tells him that they found an old birthday card addressed to him from 1942 with $25 in it (he would have been 7 in 1942, and, unfortunately, his birthday is December 7th, "The Day of Infamy," which is maybe why he never received this birthday card), but after consulting with their lawyers and accountants, The Huntington found that it would be too much of a hassle for them to keep the money, and, the easiest thing to do would be to give him the money, but they get to keep the original birthday card , since the birthday card counts as one of the original papers donated to The Huntington's archive. My father duly receives a Xerox copy of the birthday card (in black and white, not even in color, mind you), and a check for $25, plus a couple of 1942 bonds also in his name.

Using the site kindly provided by Rick Blaine in "The Connoisseur" section (In "Menu from 1922," Thanks Rick Blaine!), based upon The Consumer Price Index/CPI, in 1942, $25 would be a modern equivalent of $318.01 !!!!

 

[magnolia76]

Too many people expect things to be handed to them in this world. Sometimes life doesn't go your way and you don't have to rain on the lucky one's parade. I'm sure that the contractor has had wonderfully lucky opportunities in his life, and should focus on the cup being half full. I would be THRILLED to be offered 10% of the cash, and to be honest, I wouldn't take it on the first offer, let alone make it a point to demand the cash. It sickens me. How incredibly unprofessional.

 

[celtic]

Too many people expect things to be handed to them in this world. Sometimes life doesn't go your way and you don't have to rain on the lucky one's parade. I'm sure that the contractor has had wonderfully lucky opportunities in his life, and should focus on the cup being half full. I would be THRILLED to be offered 10% of the cash, and to be honest, I wouldn't take it on the first offer, let alone make it a point to demand the cash. It sickens me. How incredibly unprofessional.

+1

If a plumber was fixing a pipe and found a diamond ring in a U-joint, would he automatically think it belonged to him?

 

[eldonkr]

She should have had the contractor put in the lock boxes and sealed him in the wall.

I agree with that