[Arguendo]

Again, under the common law, the treasure trove belongs to the finder, not the property owner.

I'm not sure this would belong to the finder under any theory of law. In England a treasure trove only went to the finders if it was clearly abandoned, otherwise it went to the king. This property wasn't really abandoned (so you're correct that it should probably go to the estate of the person who originally hid it), but between the finder and the homeowner, I think the clear trend in America is to award it to the homeowner since the contractor was simply an agent of the homeowner.

[Publius Valerius]

I think the clear trend in America is to award it to the homeowner since the contractor was simply an agent of the homeowner.

You may be right about the general trend, but at least at common law, it seems like it should belong to the contractor.

I wonder if there is anyone in the house who has knowledge of archaic Ohio property law?

[Publius Valerius]

I think the clear trend in America is to award it to the homeowner since the contractor was simply an agent of the homeowner.

You raise an interesting argument about agency that I hadn't considered. Good point. I'm not sure I'm totally on board with what you're saying, but I'm beginning to second-guess.