SATYAM SINGH
SECTION C
20141343
BA. LLB. 2014

TO: Faiz Tajuddin
FROM: Satyam Singh
DATE: September 16, 2015
RE: Robert Langdon v. Springfield College of Law (Lost/Mislaid Wallet)

MEMORANDUM

Question Presented
This memorandum analyses whether Robert Langdon, a construction worker, working at the Springfield College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio, be entitled to the possession of the wallet found on top of a duct behind a wall as the finder of “lost” property or will Springfield be entitled to hold on to the money as being “mislaid”, and keep the recuperated amount once the applicable statutory time has passed?
Brief Answer
The Court is most likely to rule that the wallet was mislaid property and not lost property. The classification between lost property and mislaid property was established in Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. and State Central Bank. “Property is lost when the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with its possession and does not know where it is,” whereas “Mislaid property is voluntarily put in a certain place by the owner who then overlooks or forgets where the property is.” There is substantial evidence for the wallet to be classified as mislaid property. The wallet was found on a duct behind a wall, which gives us an indication that that that the owner voluntarily put it there, and it is unlikely that the owner parted with it without the intention of doing so. Furthermore, the location and the manner in which the wallet was hidden, was such that it was apparently found after 43 years. Moreover, it was not found in a very conventional manner but in the process of renovating and plastering the walls, and was accessible only on rigorous scrutiny by Langdon. The setting suggests that the wallet was left there purposefully i.e. mislaid and not left there by accident. Mislaid property is trusted with the owner of the premises where it was found, and not with the finder. Therefore, Springfield College has a right to the possession of the wallet and the amount recovered from it, as against all but the true owner.
Statement of Facts
Robert Langdon, a construction worker currently working at the Springfield College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio, to help renovate the second floor of the law school. In August of 2015, while working on the walls in the far back corner of the second floor, Mr. Langdon found a dusty faded brown leather wallet sitting on top of a duct that was behind the wall. Inside the wallet, Langdon found $324 but no other items of identification. Based on the dates on the currency, Langdon believed that the wallet had been between the walls since perhaps 1972, but found no other evidence to how long the wallet was lying there.
Langdon conveyed his finding to the construction head, and then passed it over to the Springfield Security. Springfield intends to keep hold of the wallet as being mislaid, and intends to keep the money once the appropriate statutory time has passed. Since, nobody has come forth to claim the property; Langdon enquires whether he would be entitled to the property as finder of lost property.
Discussion
It was ascertained that there are four categories of found properties (Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation). The categories were lost property, mislaid property, abandoned property and treasure troves. The present case deals only with “lost” and “mislaid” property.
Lost property requires that the parting of the possession from the property should be involuntary or unintentional and the owner does not know where the property is. Here the finder is entitled by common law to claim ownership of said property against all persons except the true owner.
Mislaid property requires that the owner voluntarily places the property at a particular place, that is, the place where it is discovered and the owner forgets where it was placed. Here, the owner of the premises where the property is found has the right of possession of the mislaid property against all persons other than the true owner.
The two determining factors of the nature of the found property in such cases are the location of the found property and the manner in which it was found.

1. The location of the property
In the present case the wallet was clearly not readily accessible as it was placed on top of a duct behind a wall. Furthermore, the placement of the wallet itself in such a discrete location reveals the owner’s intention to keep it hidden for future retrieval.
In the case of Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation INC., Benjamin found the bundle of money behind the panels of the underside of the wings of a plane. While, in Terry v. AD Lock the box containing $33810 was found on the vent of the ceiling of a room.
Based on the two precedents stated earlier, the property would be declared as mislaid as the property was not placed in an area where it was noticeable but hidden on top of a duct behind a wall giving a strong indication towards the indication of the owner.

2. The manner in which the property was found
Robert Langdon, found the wallet on top of duct behind the wall therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it took him substantial effort in procuring the property which would be unlikely if the construction work was not going on.
Moreover, in the Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation case, the inspector had to open the screws of the panels on the underside of the plane in order to retrieve the property. The screws were rusted, implying that these had not been opened for a sufficient period of time. In the Terry v. AD Lock case too, the ceiling tiles had to be removed and the finder had to climb a ladder in order to reach the box. Therefore, using the above two cases it can clearly be seen that sufficient and substantial efforts were required by the finder in order to retrieve the property.

Counter Arguments
Perhaps the best argument Langdon has lies in the rationale of the Toledo case. In Toledo, the court reasoned that the fact that the money had not been claimed for many years was substantial evidence that the money was involuntarily dropped, and thus was “lost” and not “mislaid”. Here, Langdon would argue that the age of the currency is analogous to the Toledo case in which the court reasoned that the passage of time indicated that the money should be viewed as “lost”. To this Springfield would respond by pointing out that the court looks at the “intent” behind an object’s placement and not the relative degree of difficulty in retrieval. Springfield would also argue that the lack of identification strongly points towards an intentional placement. A “lost” wallet would likely contain ID or credit cards.
Here the facts support intentional placement. The wallet was discovered on top of an otherwise inaccessible duct behind the wall. In addition, the placement of the wallet on the duct suggests that it was less likely to have been dropped rather than placed on the duct. The length of time in which the wallet has been in the wall may imply an accidental placement though the courts have held old currency to have been mislaid as well.

Conclusion
It is improbable that Langdon would be successful in having the wallet declared as “lost property”. Courts have held previously that objects found in places that are difficult to access, in non-public areas, or that seem like they have been placed in their location for future reclamation are mislaid. Here, Springfield would argue that all of these conditions are fulfilled and that the wallet should be declared “mislaid”. Langdon might point out that the wallet has been misplaced for 43 years and not a single claim has been made for its recovery which is more than enough to qualify it to be classified as lost. Springfield could counter argue that the passage of time is not relevant to intent and just because the currency indicates that the wallet might be from around 1972 there is no certain way to affirm this assertion. The facts are leaning towards a premeditated placement; hence Langdon might not be successful in having the wallet declared to be lost.