Posted on 11/11/2008 12:13:50 PM PST by BenLurkin
A Cleveland woman who ended up in a feud over $182,000 in Depression-era currency found in the walls of her home has filed for bankruptcy.
Amanda Reece's Nov. 5 filing lists liabilities of $1.9 million and assets of $980,000.
A contractor found the stash during a remodeling project in April 2006. He asked for a share but he and Reece couldn't agree on how to split the cash.
She testified in a deposition that she had spent about $14,000 of the money and that $60,000 was stolen from her closet.
Contractor Bob Kitts got about $25,230 but a judge ordered him to split it with the estate of the man who hid the cash during the Depression.
Neither the deposition nor the bankruptcy filing explain what happened to the rest
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"In this undated handout photo released by Bob Kitts, contractor Kitts, left, and homeowner Amanda Reece pose with money found at Reece's home in Cleveland. The discovery amounted to little more than grief for Kitts, who couldn't agree on how to split the money with Reece." (AP Photo, Bob Kitts)
They both deserve to be broke, what fools ...
Stupid is as stupid does....
I would assume $500 bills would be worth more than $500.
Same for the $1000s.
ITEM# DESCRIPTION PRICE
us500-vf U.S. $500.00 Bill (Very Fine) $ 1,750.00 Quantity:
us1000-vf U.S. $1000.00 Bill (Very Fine) $ 3,498.00 Quantity:
us-set-vf U.S. $1000 & $500 Bill (very fine) $ 4,998.00 Quantity:
She had probably a $500,000 there, not $186K.
The estate of the previous owner of the home should have no claim at all. The house, including the walls and any insulation - no matter how eccentric - the previous owner chose to put into them, belonged to the owner of record.
The contractor had no claim either. It would have been a nice and neighborly thing to do to offer the guy a finder's fee - say 10%.
But not obligatory.
If you think you catch some grief for trying to break a $100 at the convenience store for a pack of gum, try to break a $1000 bill for some penny candy. :O)
They are indeed stupid. This story made local and national news, and the heirs to the owner of the money got wind of the story and intervened in the lawsuit, claiming that they were the rightful owners of the money.
If these two would have kept their mouths shut and just divided the money instead of posing for pictures and getting on the news, they both would have had a lot more money to spend.
I think that in the sense that bills can have a form of numismatic value they may be worth more — but otherwise paper money is only worth what it says on its face.
I have a solution: why don’t they just marry either other? They both look like they’re married already anyway.
“The contractor had no claim either. It would have been a nice and neighborly thing to do to offer the guy a finder’s fee - say 10%.”
She did. He wanted 40%.
110%
>>She testified in a deposition that she had spent about $14,000 of the money and that $60,000 was stolen from her closet.<<
Uh, ever hear of a bank?
I always thought if you owned a house and bought it you got everything in it.
If it was sentimental value I would return it, but if someone leaves a stash in the walls, that’s almost like abandoning it. Maybe the guy hated his kids and didn’t want them to have it.
Or she could have sealed it up in a wall.
this must be her-somewhat of a communtiy organizer...
http://www.housingadvocatesinc.com/sub/index.jsp?contentid=1LsmzlhUAJDL9GjZoXjn938Y
I don’t get how the contractor could have a valid claim. Sheesh. This really makes the “system” seem even more screwed up. So if a plumber pulls your wedding ring out of the sink drain, he gets a percent of the value of the ring?
Under English common law (and thus most American law), that is precisely the proper owner. The owner hid the treasure and presumably forgot about it or died before he could alert his family to its whereabouts. It seems most equitable that the money should belong to his heirs.
The contractor had no claim either.
Again, under the common law, the treasure trove belongs to the finder, not the property owner. Some states have rejected this, but I believe it's still the majority view. Don't know the Ohio view. Either way, it's an interesting set of facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.