Who Should Get the Money?
Unless a property is abandoned, a true owner is liable to reclaim the asset. In this case, Grande, a representative of her father, Spann’s estate, is embroiled in a dispute involving $500,000 that was discovered by Cuen, a renovator, during a renovation for the new owners, McCallum and Jennings (Grande v Jennings/McCallum 2). According to the dictates of the law, true owners of a lost or mislaid property, Grande, in this case, can reclaim the possession.
Grande should be given the $500,000 that Cuen took. For starters, the cans which contained the cash were voluntarily placed by Robert Spann, meaning that the property was mislaid. The law states that mislaid property belongs to the original owner and that whoever finds the property is simply a caretaker (Miller 637). It is easy to prove that the property was mislaid, given that Spann hid his other fortunes in unlikely places, and Grande and her sister Kim, who knew their father’s wealth-hiding habit, had to destroy sections of the house to recover some items. From this reasoning, Cuen and Jennings and Clinton McCallum only to exercise care over the money until Grande recovers the funds hoping that she will likely return to reclaim her father’s property. Even supposing that the property was lost, Grande would still have first ownership rights as evidenced by law (Miller 637). A property finder can claim ownership of the item against an entire world, except the true owner (Miller 637). As such, whether Cuen or McCallum or Jennings found the money, Grande would be entitled to the funds because her estate is the primary owner of the house. Moreover, Grande can file a tort of conversion case against Cuen, McCallum, and Jennings should they fail to return the money, yet they know Grande’s family are the true owners of the fortune. Grande has more rights to the money than the other parties.
To sum up, the law favors true owners of a property that is lost or mislaid. From the case, Grande’s family are the true owners of the money because it belonged to their father, who left them the house. If this case goes to trial, Grande will likely be the winner. Being a true property owner is advantageous in disputes relating to a fortune.
Works Cited
“Grande v Jennings/McCallum.” The Court of Appeal state of Arizona Division 1, n.d.
Miller, Roger. “Personal Property, Bailments, and Insurance.” In Business Law Today: The Essentials. Texas: Cengage Learning.