Property Rights
Introduction
According to Bray, property refers to ‘the right to possess, use, and dispose of something under the protection of the law.’ Thus, property refers to something that is characterised by the above rights. There are two main categories of property that include real and personal property. Personal property may either be tangible such as movable objects or intangible, for example, patents. Conversely, real property refers to land, interests in land, and objects that are permanently attached to the land. Goldman and Sigismond assert that land includes ‘the surface, what is below the surface and the air space above the surface.’ Thus, the rocks, grass, minerals, trees, and minerals are all components of land. Different types of laws have been formulated in the quest to promote law and order with regard to property ownership. The laws govern different aspects such as lost property and mislaid property. According to Carper, McKinsey, and West, lost property entails property that is unwillingly forgotten or abandoned while abandoned property refers to property that has been discarded by the owner without the intention of reclaiming it[1]. This paper entails an analysis of a scenario with reference to property rights.
Summary of the scenario
Craig, an employee at Manor Farm, which is owned by Sarah and Tony Brown found a number of old but quite valuable objects whilst ploughing one of the fields at Manor Farm. The objects were comprised of a number of coins; a cup made up of metal and decorated with intricate patterns and a pottery vase. Craig took the objects and does not inform Sarah and Tony about the find. Additionally, Donald, a guest at Manor Farm Guest House found a diamond ring buried in long grass in Manor Farm. Donald decided to give the diamond ring to his girlfriend Ellie. During one of the open days in which the farm allows visitors into the firm, Eric found a £50 note in a nearby hedge and took it.
Analysis
The scenario above underlines cases of acquisition of property rights. McFarlane, Hopkins, and Nield are of the opinion that ‘if a party has a property right in land or property, he also has a right of control of; within limits, the area above and below the surface, anything that is part and parcel of the land and anything that is sufficiently attached to the land.’ However, the fact that an individual has the right overhand does not mean that he or she has the right to control everything within the land. Therefore, as an employee at Manor Farm, Craig has a legal interest in the Farm. In relation to the items found, Craig has a legal right to claim ownership of the valuables. The valuables found can be categorised as abandoned property. This arises from the fact that the items were valuables and the probability of burying the valuables for safekeeping by the true owner was low.
If a person finds an abandoned property, he or she has the title of ownership over the property and no one can claim ownership, including the original owner. On the basis of this aspect, Sarah and Tony cannot claim ownership over the valuables found. However, if a person who finds the property is trespassing over another person’s property or land, then he or she cannot claim ownership over the property. On the contrary, the finder has to return the items found to the owner. In this case, Craig was not trespassing which means that he has a legal interest in the property. Therefore, the fact that Sarah and Tony owned property right on land does not give them special rights with regard to objects lost and found within Manor Farm.
This aspect is underlined in the case of Hannah v Peel [1945] 1 KB 509. In this case, Major Peel bought a house hence acquiring property right over the land. Nevertheless, he did not move in for some time, which means that the house remained empty. The house was occasionally used by armed forces. On one occasion, Mr. Hannah, a corporal stationed at the house found a brooch hidden within a window’s crevice at the house and handed it to the police. The brooch was later given to Mr. Peel who offered a reward to Mr. Hannah. Nevertheless, Mr. Hannah turned down the reward and argued that he had a property right over the brooch because he was the one who found it. Mr. Peel sold the brooch and argued that it was his since it was found on his land. In making a determination over the case, Birkett ruled in favour of Mr. Hannah.
According to Emanuel, the first person to find a lost property and takes its physical control, he or she acquires a right over the property. In relation to this aspect, Craig has a property right over the valuables found at Manor Farm. This means that Sarah and Tony cannot claim ownership over the valuables despite the fact that they are the legal owners of Manor Farm.
Nevertheless, in the event that Craig informs Sarah and Tony of the find, and they can prove to be the true owners of the valuables, Craig will not have a property right over the valuables. This assertion is supported by McKinsey and Burke who emphasises that ‘the finder of a property can claim title to the property against everyone but the true owner’. In proving ownership, Sarah and Tony have a duty to establish that they had right over the valuables prior to Craig finding the property. In establishing property ownership, Sarah and Tony may affirm that he has a right over the land in which the valuables were found. Additionally, Craig can lose right over the valuables if Sarah and Tony prove that the valuables were part and parcel of Manor Farm. However, the case does not indicate that a transfer of ownership of Manor Farm had occurred. Therefore, Sarah and Tony had a duty to prove ownership of the find in order to acquire right over the find.
In spite of such an argument, Sarah and Tony cannot acquire the right over the valuables as illustrated in the case of Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75. In this case, the claimant found a package dropped at the defendant’s shop and handed it to the defendant to find the true owner. The package contained bank notes. After three years, no one had claimed the package nor could did the defendant find the true owner. The claimant requested the defendant to return the package to him, being the first party to find the package but he refused. The claimant sought legal redress. In making a ruling the court argued that the claimant was entitled to the package. LeRoyMiller and Cross assert that if the true owner of a lost property does not come forward to claim the property after some specified time, then the person who finds the lost property becomes the new owner.
In relation to Donald’s case, he has a title right over the diamond ring found because he was the first person to find the ring. This aspect is underlined in the case of Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004, CA. In this case, Mr. Parker was waiting to board a British airline at Heathrow Airport Terminal One when he found a golden bracelet on the floor. The bracelet had been lost by an unknown person. Parker took the bracelet and handed it over to the British Airways staff instructing them to find the true owner. Additionally, he gave his contact details to the British Airways staff so that the bracelet would be given to him in the event that no one came to claim it. After some time, no one had come to claim the bracelet, which triggered British Airways to sell it off at £ 850. Mr. Parker later came to claim the bracelet arguing that he had a property right over the bracelet since he was the one who first found it. The court ruled that British Airways was liable for the tort of conversion by refusing to give the bracelet back. Similar to the case of Hannah v Peel, British Airways did not acquire a property right by the virtue of the fact that the bracelet was found on its land. In relation to this ruling, Donald had a property right over the bracelet. Therefore, Donald did not commit any offense by giving the bracelet to his girlfriend.
However, considering the fact that Donald was a guest at Manor Farm Guest House, he had a duty to find the true owner of the ring. Different states have formulated laws and regulations that oblige a person who finds a lost or mislaid property to find its true owner. These rules are categorised as estray rules. Clarkson, LeRoyMiller, and Cross accentuate that ‘estray statutes provide an incentive for the finder to report their discoveries by enabling them, at the end of the specified time to acquire legal title to the found property.’ However, estray laws specifically apply to lost property. Thus, the mislaid property is not subject to statute law. In applying the estray rules, the finder of the property should inform the relevant government officials such as county clerks of the items found. The county clerks in return have a duty to advertise the items in an effort to find the true owner.
If the true owner of the lost property demands the party who found the property to return it, then the finder has no option but must return it. Additionally, if the party who finds the lost property knows the true owner but fails to return it, he or she commits the tort of conversion. According to Harpwood, the tort of conversion involves dealing with properties or goods in a manner that is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner hence denying the right of the owner or asserting a right that is inconsistent with the owner’s rights.’ Stroud argues that the tort of conversion occurs if a person refuses to give back items found by a claimant upon being demanded. In this case, no one came to claim the diamond ring, which means that Donald had a property right over the diamond ring.
In relation to Eric’s case, Eric has a right of the £50 found. This aspect is underlined in the case of Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1986] QB 334, CA. In this case, Waverley Borough Council had a property right over Farnham Park. The Council allowed the public to access the Park for recreation purposes. Mr. Fletcher visited Farnham Park with a metal detector and found a gold brooch after digging nine inches into the ground. He took physical control over the gold brooch. According to the Treasure Act 1996, the UK Crown acquires a property right in relation to any items of treasure found immediately after the treasure is found. In making a determination over the case, the court ruled that the Crown had no property right over the find and hence could not claim it. The court ruled in favour of Mr. Fletcher. In spite of the acquiring property right by taking physical control over the £50 note, Eric had a duty to ensure that the true owner of the £50 is found. Thus, Eric should have applied the estray statute, which encourages individuals who find lost properties to try and find the true owner. In doing so, Erich should have handed over the find to Manor Farm instructing the management to find the true owner. In the event that Manor Farm does not succeed in finding the true owner of the property, Eric could claim right over the £50 found.
Conclusion
The above scenario underlines a number of issues with regard to property rights relating to lost and abandoned property. The analysis indicates that the finder of lost property acquires the right over the property. However, the finder’s rights over the lost property are limited to the extent that the true owner does not come forward to claim it. Thus, if the true owner comes forward to claim ownership over the property, then the finder has a duty to return the lost item found. In the scenario, Craig has a property right over the valuables found at Manor Farm. However, Craig can lose property rights if Sarah and Tony come forward and claim true ownership of the valuables because they were found on their land. This aspect arises from the fact that a person who owns the land has control over items on the surface, above and below the land. The scenario further underlines that Donald has right over the diamond ring that he found. This arises from the fact that he was the first person to take physical control of the diamond ring. Donald and Eric further had a duty to ensure that the true owner of the items found, viz. the diamond ring and the £50, is found. This duty is underlined under the estray rules. In the event that the true owners of the items are found to come forward to claim the properties and Craig, Donald and Eric fail to return the items, the three parties will be liable for the tort of conversion. In summary, the scenario underlines the fact that property rights in relation to lost property can be transferred to another party. However, the extent to which such property rights can be transferred is limited to whether the true owner comes forward to claim the items.
References
Bray Judith, Key cases land law (New York: Routledge 2009).
Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 (E-Law Resources, 24 Feb. 2017).
Carper Donald, McKinsey John and West Bill, Understanding the law (New York: Cengage
Learning 2012).
Cartwright, John and Maudsley, Ronald, Maudsley & Burn’s land law; cases and materials
(Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009).
Clarkson Kenneth, LeRoyMiller Roger and Cross Frank, Business law; text and cases (New
York: Cengage 2011).
Clarke Alison and Kohler Paul, Property law; commentary and materials (London:
Cambridge University Press 2009).
Emanuel Steven, Property (New York: Aspen Publishers 2004).
Goldman Arnold and Sigismond William, Business law; principles and practices (Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning 2014).
Hannah v Peel (1945) 1 KB 509 (E-Law Resources, 24 Feb. 2017).
Harpwood Vivienne, Modern tort law (Chicago: Psychology Press 2005).
LeRoyMiller Roger and Cross Frank, Business law, alternate edition; text and summarised
cases (New York: Cengage Learning 2010).
McFarlane Ben, Hopkins Nicholas and Nield Sarah, Land law; text, cases and materials
(Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015).
Stroud, April, Making sense of land law (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
Thompson Mark, Modern law (Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford).
Carper Donald, McKinsey John and West Bill, Understanding the law (New York: Cengage
Learning 2012) 517.
