Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As a corollary to this exception, a landowner has superior claim over a find made within the non-public areas of his property, so if a customer finds lost property in the public area of a store, the customer has superior claim to the lost property over that of the store-owner, but if the customer finds the lost property in the non-public area ...
Unowned property includes tangible, physical things that are capable of being reduced to being property owned by a person but are not owned by anyone. Bona vacantia (Latin for "ownerless goods") is a legal concept associated with the unowned property, which exists in various jurisdictions, with a consequently varying application, but with origins mostly in English law.
Since theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property, an essential element of the actus reus of theft is absent. [2] The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner. [1]
But the penalties for picking up mislaid property depend on what you find and its value. Kansas Statute 21-5802 considers keeping mislaid property valued at less than $1,000 a class A nonperson ...
In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment.However, many legal systems courts recognize that once someone has occupied property without permission for a significant period of time without the property owner exercising their right to recover their property, not only is the original owner ...
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 ...
Corliss v. Wenner, 34 P.3d 1100 (Idaho 2001), was a case decided by the Court of Appeals of Idaho that rejected the common law distinctions between lost, mislaid, and abandoned property and treasure trove. [1]
Historically, the common law has frowned on the use of defeasible estates as it interferes with the owners' enjoyment of their property and as such has made it difficult to create a valid future interest. Unless a defeasible estate is clearly intended, modern courts will construe the language against this type of estate.