Who Gets The Money?

[mtj]

I say they should split it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_fe_st/odd_house_hidden_money_2

[boo1]

I think the money belongs to the homeowner. If it were me, and the contractor was a friend, I would spilt the money. If the contractor was a stranger I would give him a finders fee. I bet the old homeowners relatives will show up soon and join in this battle.

[Agent99]

They should definitely split the money. It is found money. It is a gift. They should share the money and celebrate their long friendship and the unexpected gift they found. The love of money truly is the root of all evil. The homeowners are greedy.

[Remo]

I don't know. I'm leaning more towards the homeowner. If a carpet installer found a diamond earring in the carpet he was removing would you want him to keep it, or get a finders fee?
I think the 10% she offered him was more than fair. There are too many lame lawsuits. It was her house, her property. He was hired to do his job. Finding this property in a wall was a surprise, but he certainly shouldn't get 40%. Anyone who buys a house knows that once they buy it it is theirs. There is no legal ground for the former owner to come back and get something they may have forgotten. So if you leave your crap in a garage I buy, I then have to clean up your crap. If in that crap you left a stack of $100 bills, tough luck, I bought them with the house.
I think the contractor should have taken the 10% and finished the job. He would have gotten that money as a bonus, she may have then hired him for more work, since she now has more money for renovations. So he could have made more money. And had his name in the paper and gotten the free publicity just for doing his job. I think he's being greedy. The law suits over who bought the Pepsi, who drank the pepsi and who's Pepsi was it really have made people think they can get away with this crap. Like one woman who claimed she lost her winning powerball ticket, when she had never bought it.
If he had taken this find and walked off with it without telling the owner we would all be calling him a thief. And chances are he would get arrested for stealing. So why should he be entitled to any of it?

[MeganG]

I agree with you Remo. Its her property, he was being paid to do a job, that's the reason he was in the house to begin with.

[Tiggermom]

ITA Remo. The money is hers and I don't think she's being greedy at all, she offered him 10% of it, I think that was a kind and right thing to do. He says she wouldn't have found it without him, well he wouldn't have found it if she hadn't of hired him. If I were on that jury I would find for her 100% and leave him without anything. Honestly, I think it would serve him right if he not only lost the right to any of the money, but if this whole thing cost him jobs also, I know I wouldn't hire him, I think he's the greedy one. That's my opinion.

[Melinda]

I think Remo is right--never mind who found it, it belongs to the owner of the property. I feel certain that if the situation was reversed, he would feel that he owned something valuable found in his house. Since the owner who supposedly put it there died childless, presumably there are no heirs who could contest any decision (although when money's involved, people show up out of the woodwork.)

If you read the original story, the homeowner says that the contractor tore out other plaster, without her permission, looking for more hidden treasure. I say that whatever she offered him should have been accepted in gratitude, and the story would have put him in a good light. Now he looks like a greedy jerk, and I certainly wouldn't want him in my house to do work for me.

[CardBoardCopy]

It belongs to the homeowner. The contractor is just greedy.

[Agent99]

I think the reason I say split it is because of their long friendship. I think that puts a different spin on things. It sounds like this found money has ruined that.

[Remo]

I haven't read anything yet that says they were friends. They were classmates. They look to be in their mid-30's (I saw a video on Yahoo news). So lets say they graduated high school 17 years ago, it doesn't mean they have remained friends this whole time. And I haven't seen anything that said that they have. So just becuase they went to school together 17 years ago (or however long ago) IMO doesn't make it a long friendship.
Although still even if it was a long friendship I think the 10% she offered him was generous. If it ends up being work $500,000 (and remember it has to actually be bought by collectors to give it a true value) he still gets $50,000 that he wouldn't have had otherwise. It's not like 10% would be nothing. If I helped a friend remodel and something like that was found I wouldn't bitch about them giving me $50,000 for helping them find it. I'd be thrilled since I would know it was theirs.
I think he's being greedy. And I hadn't read where he knocked out more plaster in hopes of finding more. I still think if he had just taken all this money without telling her we would all be calling him a theif, which says that he has no right to any of it.