Favorite v.

Miller Case Brief

Citation  Favorite v. Miller

 Supreme Court of Connecticut (1978)
 176 Conn. 310, 407 A.2d 974
Parties 

Instant Facts  Miller (Defendant) found an artifact on Favorite’s (Plaintiff) property and
claimed ownership.


Procedural History 

Facts  Defendant trespassed onto Plaintiff’s property. While there, he found and
removed a valuable portion of a Revolutionary War statue. When Plaintiff
sued for its return, Defendant claimed that the property was abandoned
by its original owners and that, as the finder, he was entitled to keep it.
Plaintiff argued that the artifact was “mislaid” instead of abandoned and
that as owner of the premises upon which it was found, the artifact
belonged to him. The court found that Plaintiff held superior tile and
Defendant appealed.


Issue  Does D have the possessory rights to the piece of the statue?
 Does an individual who trespasses onto the land of another and finds
property have a greater right to that property than the landowner?


Holding  No. A landowner has a greater right to an item found on his property than
does the individual who trespasses onto his land and finds it. Regardless
of whether the property is abandoned or mislaid, as historically
categorized, a trespasser cannot hold greater right than the landowner.
The trespasser has no legal right to be on the land in the first place, so he
cannot benefit from his trespass. Defendant knowingly trespassed and,
therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the property found on his land. Affirmed.

Rules  If the finder is a trespasser, the owner of the premises where the object is
found always prevails over the finder. This rule discourages trespass and
unauthorized entries on property. [Favorite v. Miller, 407 A.2d 974
(Conn. 1978);
 Unless the trespass is trivial, a trespassing finder does not have good title
against the owner of the locus in quo. Otherwise, the law favoring finders
against all but the true owner would reward trespassers and perhaps
even encourage trespassing.


Decision  Affirmed.

Reasoning  The defendant’s trespass was neither trivial nor technical because he
knew he was trespassing when he entered upon the property and
 because the property found was embedded in the earth, meaning he had
to dig it up before he could claim it.


Analysis  Two lines of authority were merged in this ruling. One provided that a
landowner is presumed to own property found on his land, unless the
finder of the property can overcome the presumption. The second
provided that items found on land are similar to mineral rights, and that
the landowner clearly owns all items found on, in, or under his land.


Questions  When the people originally buried the treasure, would that act of burying
the treasure be classified as the buriers parting with the ownership or
control of the property? P.49

Case Vocabulary  Due course

o This phrase is synonymous with “due process of law.” or “the law
of the land.” and the general definition thereof is “lawin its
regular course of administration through courts of justice;” and.
while not alwaysnecessarily confined to judicial proceedings, yet
these words have such a signification,when used to designate
the kind of an eviction, or ouster, from real estate by which
aparty is dispossessed, as to preclude thereunder proof of a
constructive evictionresulting from the purchase of a paramount
title when hostilely asserted bv the partyholding it. See Adler v.
Whitbeck. 44 Ohio St. 509, 9 N. E. 072: In re Dorsev. 7 Port.(Ala.)
404: Backus v. Shinherd. 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 035; Dwight v.
Williams. 8 Fed. Cas. 187
 Conjecture
o an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete
information
o

Summary of Favorite (P) v. Miller (D), Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1978

Facts:
D determined that a part of a statue of King George III might be found in the swamp on P’s land.
He was informed that he should contact the owners of the property before attempting to
locate the part of the statue. He did not comply and instead took his metal detector, went to
the swamp, found the piece and uncovered it from within the ground. D turned the piece over
to a Museum in NYC while the case was being decided. If it were decided in his favor, the
museum would pay him for the find.

Issue:
Does D have the possessory rights to the piece of the statue?

Holding:
No.
In General:
1. Lost property has traditionally been defined as involving an involuntary parting, where no
intent on the part of the loser to part with the ownership of the property.
2. Abandonment, in turn, has been defined as the voluntary relinquishment of ownership of
property without reference to any particular person or purpose.
3. Mislaid property is defined as that which is intentionally placed by the owner where he can
obtain custody of it, but afterwards forgotten.
4. Locus in quo – the place where the lost property was found.

General Rule:
Typically, if the property was found to be lost or abandoned, the finder would prevail, whereas
if the property was characterized as mislaid, the owner or occupier of the land would prevail.
The classification of property into these categories requires the courts to determine the intent
or mental state of the unknown party who at some time in the past parted with the ownership
or control of the property.

Specific Rule:
1. Except where the trespass is trivial or merely technical, the fact that the finder is trespassing
is sufficient to deprive him of his normal preference over the owner of the place where the
property was found.
2. Property, other than treasure trove, which is found embedded in the earth is the property of
the owner of the locus in quo.

Reasoning:
The defendant’s trespass was neither trivial nor technical because he knew he was trespassing
when he entered upon the property and because the property found was embedded in the
earth, meaning he had to dig it up before he could claim it.

Result:
The lower court is upheld.

Citation. 407 A.2d 974 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 1978). [2]

Brief Fact Summary.

Miller (Defendant) found an artifact on Favorite’s (Plaintiff) property and claimed ownership.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A landowner has a greater right to an item found on his property than does the individual who
trespasses onto his land and finds it.
Facts.

Defendant trespassed onto Plaintiff’s property. While there, he found and removed a valuable
portion of a Revolutionary War statue. When Plaintiff sued for its return, Defendant claimed
that the property was abandoned by its original owners and that, as the finder, he was entitled
to keep it. Plaintiff argued that the artifact was “mislaid” instead of abandoned and that as
owner of the premises upon which it was found, the artifact belonged to him. The court found
that Plaintiff held superior tile and Defendant appealed.

Issue.

Does an individual who trespasses onto the land of another and finds property have a greater
right to that property than the landowner?

Held.

(Bogdanski, J.) No. A landowner has a greater right to an item found on his property than does
the individual who trespasses onto his land and finds it. Regardless of whether the property is
abandoned or mislaid, as historically categorized, a trespasser cannot hold greater right than
the landowner. The trespasser has no legal right to be on the land in the first place, so he
cannot benefit from his trespass. Defendant knowingly trespassed and, therefore, Plaintiff is
entitled to the property found on his land. Affirmed.

Discussion.

Two lines of authority were merged in this ruling. One provided that a landowner is presumed
to own property found on his land, unless the finder of the property can overcome the
presumption. The second provided that items found on land are similar to mineral rights, and
that the landowner clearly owns all items found on, in, or under his land.

f. Landowner’s Claims
When conflicts arise between a finder and the owner or possessor of the land where the
property was found, courts employ several sometimes conflicting distinctions in determining
which party is entitled to possession, including:
1) Finder’s Status
The finder’s claim to the found property is weaker if:
a) He is a trespasser on the land, Goddard v. Winchell, 52 N.W. 1124 (Iowa 1892); Barker v.
Bates, 30 Mass. 255 (1832);
b) He is on the land for a limited purpose, such as repairing the sink or delivering the mail,
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, 2 Q.B. 44 (1896);
c) He is on the land as the landowner’s employee; or
d) He agreed to give any found goods to the landowner, as is often the agreement between
hotel owners and their housekeeping crews.

2)
Status of the Premises
The finder’s claim is weaker if he found the property in a private, rather than a public, place. For
example, a person who finds a lost item in another’s private home has less chance of
prevailing against the landowner than one who finds it in a supermarket.
3) Status of the Land-Based Claim
The strength of a land-based claim may be affected by whether the claimant is a landowner
who has not yet moved in, a landlord who has never resided on the premises, a long-term
tenant, or a weekend guest. Hannah v. Peel, 1 K.B. 509 (K.B. 1945).
4) Where the Goods are Found
A landowner generally is entitled to goods found under the soil, rather than lying on it.
However, certain types of goods, such as silver and gold that have been intentionally buried,
may be characterized as treasure trove. In that case, the finder or the state may be entitled to
possession. Favorite v. Miller, 407 A.2d 974 (Conn. 1978).
5) Lost or Abandoned v. Mislaid Property
When goods are found in a public place, the finder gets them if they were lost or abandoned,
but the landowner gets them if they were mislaid (i.e. intentionally set down by the owner who
then forgot to pick them up later). The theory is that the owner of mislaid goods is more likely
to return to the premises to recover them and that recovery will be facilitated if the landowner
has possession. Findings statutes sometimes abolish this distinction, but some courts have held
that statutes concerning lost goods do not apply to mislaid goods. Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation,
534 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1995); McAvoy v. Medina, 93 Mass. 548 (1866).