Opinion ID: 895228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mislaid/Lost Property

Text: Huerta also claims a right to possession of the currency under a common law treasure trove or finders keepers doctrine. The treasure-trove doctrine applies to [v]aluables found hidden in the ground or other private place, the owner of which is unknown. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1539 (8th ed. 2004); see also Schley v. Couch, 155 Tex. 195, 284 S.W.2d 333, 335 (1955) (stating that such valuables generally consist of money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion). However, we have previously declined to recognize the treasure-trove doctrine as part of Texas law. Schley, 284 S.W.2d at 335. Instead, we apply the common law distinctions of lost and mislaid property. Id. Accordingly, we examine Huerta's claim to the currency as either lost or mislaid property. Id. Mislaid property includes property which the owner intentionally places where he can again resort to it, and then forgets. Id. It is presumed that the owner or occupier of the premises on which the mislaid property is found has custody of the property. Id. The owner or occupier's possession of the property is superior to all except the true owner. Id. For example, in Martin v. Johnson, money that was found under a rug in a garage was found to be mislaid property. 365 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1963, no writ). As the owner of the premises on which the money was found, Johnson was determined to have a right to its possession as against an individual who claimed he had found the money, and as against the former occupants of the home. Id. In this case, by contrast, it is undisputed that Huerta did not own the premisesthe Freightlineron which the currency was found. Accordingly, Huerta cannot establish possession to the currency by characterizing it as mislaid property. Neither can Huerta establish a right to possess the currency as lost property. In contrast to mislaid property, lost property includes that which the owner has involuntarily parted with through neglect, carelessness or inadvertence. Schley, 284 S.W.2d at 335 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Unlike mislaid property, the owner or occupier of the premises on which lost property is found does not acquire title to the property. Id. Instead, the finder of lost property retains possession as against the owner of the premises on which the property is found, but not against the lost property's true owner. Id. In Schley, we held that money that had been placed in a jar and then buried was not lost property. Id. at 336. The circumstances surrounding the money in Schley repell[ed] the idea that it ha[d] been lost. Id. Where the owner does not part with property as a result of carelessness or neglect, but instead demonstrates a deliberate, conscious and voluntary [desire] to hide his [property] in a place where he thought it was safe and secure, and with the intention of returning to claim it at some future date, it is mislaid property. Id. The property in this case$281,420 in various denominations found in tightly-wrapped bundles in the axle of a truckwas clearly deliberately hidden. As in Schley, the manner in which the money was placed in the axle forecloses any argument that it was lost rather than mislaid.