Claiming Unclaimed Money: Legal Advice And Considerations

This is a case of claiming monetary benefits from money that was discovered with no individual who laid claim on the money hence posing a challenge with regards to what rule should be followed in awarding the amount to one who is entitled since the amount is held by the police and nobody has laid a claim to the amount. Based on provisions of common law, the amount is to be awarded to the individual who discovered the amount having acted in good faith by taking the amount to the law enforcing agency to keep it until the amount can be claimed. However, since no rightful owner came forward to claim the amount, this aspect poses a dilemma with regards to who can be entitled to the amount hence as a legal practitioner, I seek to provide you with advice on what will be the fate of the amount since nobody has come forward to lay claim on the amount.

First of all, what Rua and Tui did is a recommendable job because finding money and keeping it without informing the law enforcing agency is regarded as larceny or theft. This act is punishable by law in which if one is found liable to such an offence, they can be subjected to an imprisonment of up to 5 years in jail, home detention or be subjected to pay good behavior bonds. As defined in a case of Ilich v r [1987], larceny is a situation which applies when a person steals without the consent of the owner or fraudulently without claim of right made in good faith steal something with an intent hence depriving the owner of such ownership. Such a claim is regarded as illegal as it can attract an imprisonment of up to 5 years as specified in section 117 of Crimes Act 1900.

When the amount was discovered, the other two claimants that is Velma and Uriah who are also not the rightful owners of the property had authorized Rua and Tui to clear all the dirty and junk materials which existed in the land for other development to be established on the region. This means that whatever they would have found at the property was rightfully theirs hence there is no way in which the two can claim ownership of the money since they had authorized total clearance of the and to pave way for other development needs. As a result, they should not be allowed to claim of the unrecovered amount since they had noting to do with finding the amount nor having a claim of the amount.

In ascertaining the person who can be allowed to own the recovered unclaimed amount, a popular case of Armory v. Delamirie can be used whereby the case involved the plaintiff who was a chimney sweeper who found a jewel and took it to the defendant shop to know what was it exactly and delivered it to the hands of an apprentice who pretended to be weighing the jewel, he removed some elements and returned the jewel to the shopkeeper who offered the chimney sweeper money who refused and claimed his jewel back.  Subsequently, the court ruled that the finder of the property through he does not acquire property ownership by such findings, he has a right to keep the property until the owner comes for it and if not, he can be the rightful owner of the property.

Legal Implications of Finding and Keeping Money

Since the rightful owner of the money has not been found, there is a likelihood that the amount can be transferred to the finder since they are the ones who found the amount during excavation program and therefore, they stand to be given the money because they are the ones who found it and therefore, there is no way in which an external party can lay claim to this amount since they were not part of the owner nor did they took part in unearthing the money from where it was located.

Having decided to handle the case through mediation, it is important first of all to lay ground for argument of the case by first of all proposing the ground for laying claim on the money which can be laid in the form of either the rightful owner or the finder can be entitled to lay claim of the money. This is based on the fact that larceny offence would have been imposed to the two if they did not make an effort to take the money to the police after they discovered the amount. However, since they took an initiative to report the money, they are the first rightful owners of the money since there is no owner who has come forward to claim the money. In arguing that failure to present the amount would have made them to be charged with larceny, they will have a better bargaining power than the other two who were only notified of the amount having been discovered. Moreover, had they not have taken the amount to the policed when they discovered it, they would not have had the case of dividing the money hence therefore, they have a better chance to lay claim on the money because they were the ones who found the amount and therefore they stand a chance to be the ones who should be given the amount to have it since there is no rightful owner who is claiming the amount.

 In the course of ascertaining whether the monetary amount that was discovered should be divided among the parties contesting for the amount, there is need to understand what the parties were claiming in the case and ascertain whether the claim is rightfully made. First of all, it can be seen that Velma who was the property site owner had issued instructions that all the property should be destroyed and the land be levelled for establishment of her business. Therefore, she does not have any right to claim to the property because she had categorically authorized Uriah to accept to totally destroy and clear the property. There is no special condition that she gave on whether if anything meaningful found should be allocated to her and therefore, she lacks moral authority to lay claim for the money because she was not interested in anything which came out of the junk when in the first place she was issuing instructions on how the property should be cleared.

On the other hand, Uriah is merely being influenced by greed and he is being dishonest in that he laid off the joint workers from undertaking the excavation on ground that they took the amount to the law enforcing agency for a legal process to be followed in determining who deserve to be entitled to take the money. The act of proposing a dubious method for allocating the amount amongst themselves is a dishonest process which should not be allowed nor should he be allowed to take part in the distribution of the amount because legally, he is against application of the law in determining who should rightfully be allowed to take the amount. The mediation unit should therefore not grant any percentage to this individual because he did not take part in discovery of the amount nor did he issue any instruction to the two workers on what they could have done if they found anything special that that they would have taken an initiative of informing him and get his consent before they can decide to inform any other external party. There is no absolute ground for his enjoining in the distribution of the money since first of all he breached the law by seemingly encouraging forceful acquisition of the amount without following the law.

Considerations for Determining Entitlement to Found Money

Moreover, since the case is to be settled through mediation, there is room for personal arguments to be undertaken in which you get a chance to defend yourself to get a favorable conclusion therefore, use this opportunity to explain why you think the other two are not legally entitled to be allocated a fraction of this amount. This means that you should be able to inform the neutral party that is helping to solve the case that your employer (Uriah) did not adhere to the law when he laid you off by using the excuse of not informing him of the discovery which you had taken a legal stand by calling him and when he was unreachable you took the initiative of leaving a voice note for the same. Secondly, you should also be able to inform the mediator that based on the instructions received from Velma, she did not propose that anything important found in the site should be taken to her or be kept for her as she was only interested in clearance of the piece of land to pave way for construction needs hence, the discovery was your joint efforts and since the rightful owner is nowhere to be found, the law provides the one who found the property or money to take possession by virtue of discovering it and not by ownership.

The fact that the finder has a more legal permission to claim for the property and money that they found provides an opportunity through which Rua and Tui can lay claim of the amount because had it not have been their efforts to excavate the place, they would not have found the money stashed in the bag underground therefore, they are the rightful person to lay claim to the money since it is their efforts that the amount contested for was found. In addition, the fact that the rightful procedure was followed in laying claim of the amount after potential owner failed to come to lay claim on the amount as his/hers. Under the provision of common knowledge and logic, an individual who has found something which was not deemed as being lost nor was it claimed by someone who has evidence that the amount is theirs, there is no way in which an outsider who did not take part in discovering the amount can be given the right to own that amount and leave behind someone who struggled to bring the package and discover that it had money inside. Rua and Tui, you stand a better chance to be rewarded by the mediation outcome as rightful owners who can own the money collected. On the other hand, there is need for neutrality to be followed in determining the legality of awarding the money to the two and not Velma and Uriah.  In addition, it should be noted that there is no law that discriminate someone who has found a lost property from laying claim to such property hence the duo is within their rightful claim to lay claim and stand a chance to be awarded the amount.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, there is to act fairly by awarding the amount to someone who deserve it. This means that the amount can be allocated to Rua and Tui only if you can hold your honest stand by claiming that since you found the amount stashed and there is no owner who has come forward to lay claim on the amount, the finder of the amount is the rightful owner who is entitled to lay claim on such amount because the law provides that the finder be entitled to own the amount if no owner come through as it was in this case scenario.

Reference List.

Ilich v R [1987] HCA 1

Section 117 of Crimes Act 1900

Armory v. Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94