Corliss v. Wenner
34 P.3d 1100 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of the land has constructive possession of all personal property secreted in, on, or under their land, and this right is superior to that of the finder. Idaho rejects the common law doctrine of treasure trove.
Facts:
- Jann Wenner hired Anderson Asphalt Paving, owned by Larry Anderson, to construct a driveway on his ranch.
- While excavating soil for the driveway, Anderson and his employee, Gregory Corliss, unearthed a glass jar containing paper-wrapped rolls of gold coins dating from 1857 to 1914.
- Anderson and Corliss initially agreed to split the coins, with Anderson retaining physical possession of all of them.
- A dispute over ownership of the coins arose between Anderson and Corliss, leading Anderson to fire Corliss.
- After the dispute, Anderson gave possession of all the coins to the landowner, Wenner, in exchange for indemnification on any claim Corliss might make.
- Separately, Corliss had obtained a personal loan from Anderson and signed a promissory note, pledging his anticipated half of the coins as collateral.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Corliss sued Jann Wenner and Larry Anderson in an Idaho district court (the trial court) seeking possession of the gold coins.
- Anderson filed a counterclaim against Corliss for payment on a promissory note.
- Wenner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he had the superior right to possess the coins.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wenner on the coin possession issue, classifying the coins as mislaid or embedded property belonging to the landowner.
- The district court also granted Anderson's motion for summary judgment on the promissory note counterclaim.
- Corliss (appellant) appealed both summary judgment orders to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law doctrine of treasure trove, which grants a possessory right to the finder, apply to gold coins found buried on another's property in Idaho, or does the right of possession belong to the landowner?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwartzman, Chief Judge
No. The common law doctrine of treasure trove does not apply in Idaho; the right of possession to property found embedded in the soil belongs to the owner of the land. The court explicitly rejected the treasure trove doctrine as being of 'dubious heritage,' inconsistent with modern values, and repugnant for encouraging trespass. The court reasoned that the 'finders keepers' rule was not part of the common law of England adopted by Idaho statute, as the English Crown, not the finder, claimed such treasure by the time of American independence. Instead, the court blended the doctrines of mislaid and embedded property, holding that personal property secreted in the soil belongs to the landowner. This approach avoids speculative inquiries into the original owner's intent, discourages trespassing, and aligns with the reasonable expectations of modern landowners who have an interest in everything on and under their property.
Analysis:
This case establishes the definitive rule in Idaho for found property embedded in the soil, explicitly rejecting the treasure trove doctrine. By doing so, the court aligned Idaho with the modern trend of favoring landowners' rights over those of finders. This decision simplifies property law by eliminating the need to distinguish between treasure trove, mislaid, and embedded property when items are found in the earth. The ruling's primary impact is to discourage trespassing and to clarify that employees, contractors, or licensees have no claim to valuables they unearth on a property owner's land, absent a specific contract.
Unlock the full brief for Corliss v. Wenner