Benjamin v. Linder Aviation, Inc.

Supreme Court of Iowa · 1995 · Property

PropertyFound propertyMislaid propertyLost propertyTreasure troveAbandoned propertyfound propertymislaid property

Facts

State Central Bank repossessed an airplane and later brought it to Lindner Aviation for a routine annual inspection. During that inspection, Lindner employee Heath Benjamin removed a wing panel and found two foil-wrapped packets of currency hidden inside the left wing; the bills were tied with string, wrapped in handkerchiefs, smelled musty, and were mostly older twenties. Benjamin claimed the money under Iowa Code chapter 644, while Lindner Aviation and the bank also claimed it. No true owner came forward within twelve months.

Issue

Does Iowa Code chapter 644 govern all found property so as to displace the common-law categories of abandoned, lost, mislaid, and treasure trove, and if not, was the money found in the airplane wing properly classified as mislaid property? If the money was mislaid, was the relevant premises the airplane or the hangar, and was Benjamin entitled to a statutory finder's fee?

Rule

Iowa Code chapter 644 applies only to property that is 'lost' under the common law and does not abrogate the common-law classifications of found property. Under those classifications, lost property is unintentionally and involuntarily parted with; mislaid property is intentionally placed somewhere and then forgotten; abandoned property is property the owner intends to relinquish; and treasure trove is concealed currency or coins with an element of antiquity such that the owner is probably dead or undiscoverable. The finder acquires no rights in mislaid property; possession belongs to the owner of the premises where it is found, as against all but the true owner, and the statutory finder's fee applies only to lost property.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Des Moines, Nora Patel found a diamond bracelet tucked inside a taped envelope beneath the removable liner of a used travel trunk owned by Cedar Bluff Credit. After waiting a year with no claim, Nora argues that Iowa's found-property statute governs all discovered property and gives her the bracelet because she filed the required paperwork.

Which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that Iowa's statute applies only to property that qualifies as lost under the common law; it does not abrogate the common-law classifications of found property. Therefore, a court must first determine whether the bracelet is lost, mislaid, abandoned, or treasure trove before deciding whether the statute applies.