Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc.

Supreme Court of Iowa
534 N.W.2d 400 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Property that is intentionally placed or concealed in a specific location by the owner, who then forgets it, is classified as mislaid property. The right of possession to mislaid property belongs to the owner of the premises where it was found, not the finder, as against all but the true owner.

Facts:

State Central Bank became the owner of an airplane after repossessing it from a prior owner.
The bank hired Lindner Aviation, Inc. to perform a routine annual inspection on the airplane.
Heath Benjamin, an employee of Lindner Aviation, conducted the inspection.
While removing a panel from the plane's wing, Benjamin had to drill out several rusty screws, indicating the panel had likely not been removed for several years.
Inside the wing, Benjamin discovered two packets wrapped in aluminum foil containing over $18,000 in currency.
The currency, primarily twenty-dollar bills with mint dates from the 1950s, was tied in string, wrapped in handkerchiefs, and had a musty odor.

Procedural Posture:

Heath Benjamin filed an affidavit with the county auditor under Iowa Code chapter 644, claiming rights as the finder of the currency.
State Central Bank and Lindner Aviation, Inc. also filed claims for the money.
After twelve months passed and the true owner did not claim the money, Benjamin filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court to establish his rights.
The district court, after a bench trial, held that the money was mislaid property and awarded possession to State Central Bank as the owner of the plane.
The district court also awarded Benjamin a 10% finder's fee.
Benjamin appealed the ruling that the property was mislaid to the Supreme Court of Iowa. State Central Bank and Lindner Aviation cross-appealed.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under Iowa common law, is currency intentionally placed and concealed inside an airplane wing classified as mislaid property, thus belonging to the owner of the airplane rather than the finder?

Opinions:

Majority - Ternus, Justice.

Yes. Currency intentionally placed and concealed is classified as mislaid property, and possession belongs to the owner of the premises where it was found. The court held that Iowa's 'lost property' statute (Iowa Code chapter 644) does not abrogate the common law distinctions between lost, mislaid, abandoned, and treasure trove property. The circumstances of the discovery—the money being carefully wrapped, tied, and hidden in a secure location—support the inference that it was intentionally placed for safekeeping, which is the hallmark of mislaid property. The right of possession is given to the owner of the premises (the airplane) because the true owner is most likely to return to that location to reclaim their property. Therefore, State Central Bank is entitled to the money. The court also reversed the lower court's award of a finder's fee, reasoning that the fee prescribed in the 'lost property' statute does not apply to mislaid property.

Dissenting - Snell, Justice

No. The money should be classified as abandoned property belonging to the finder, Heath Benjamin. The dissent argues that it defies logic and common sense to conclude that someone would secrete over $18,000 and then simply forget where it was, which is a necessary element for property to be deemed mislaid. Given the age of the currency and the fact that no true owner came forward after the legally required notice was published, the most reasonable inference is that the owner had voluntarily relinquished all rights to the property. Because the property was legally abandoned, the finder is entitled to keep the entire amount.

Analysis:

This case reaffirms the continued viability of the traditional common law classifications of found property (lost, mislaid, abandoned, treasure trove) in jurisdictions with lost property statutes. It clarifies that such statutes may apply only to 'lost' property, leaving the other categories to be determined by common law principles. The decision emphasizes that the specific circumstances of the finding are paramount in determining the owner's intent and, consequently, the property's classification. The ruling solidifies the legal fiction that a true owner of mislaid property is likely to return to the premises, thereby vesting possessory rights in the premises' owner over the finder, which can lead to outcomes that appear inequitable to the honest finder.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"