A friend of mine is a real estate broker in the Midwest. I don’t want to be more geographically specific for reasons that will soon become obvious.
He’s representing the estate of a man who died at a ripe old age. A prospective buyer comes to see the property and asks the not uncommon question, “What’s under the carpets? Slab? Hardwood?”
My friend, being a well-trained and astute individual, responds correctly, “I’m not sure. Let’s check.”
They go to one of the registers and pry it loose so they can pull away part of the carpet and see what’s underneath it. They notice what looks like a couple of old telephone books in the register. They pull them out…piles of cash! Nearly $50,000! The old man apparently didn’t trust banks that much.
The trustees, of course, were quite happy with this development.
Here’s the question: What if the money hadn’t been noticed before the transaction consummated? What if the new owner eventually found the money? To whom would it technically belong?
A crucial distinction in real estate is that between “real” and “personal” property. With the PRDS purchase contract we use in our area, generally speaking, what’s affixed to the property — cabinets, chandeliers, window fixings — is usually considered “real” property and stays with it unless specified otherwise in the contract. What’s not affixed to the property — furniture, books, kitchenware — is usually considered “personal” property and goes with the seller unless specified otherwise.
Since the pile of cash was not nailed in, there’s no doubt that it would be considered personal property and the seller would take it with him in the case above where it was discovered before the transaction closed. But if nobody had noticed until afterwards? I’m not sure. Anybody want to take a stab at it?
Tags: * Type of Content, Consumer, Industry, Real estate
Possibly related posts
- My Next Realtor-mobile(R) Will Be A Hybrid — Viewing Dozens of Properties Each Week Adds on the Miles
- Financial Alchemy: Depreciation, Passive Losses, Real Estate Professionals, And Uncle Sam (Part 4 — The Introduction Continues)
- A Lighthearted Start To Your Real Estate Day
?RE: Any thoughts on the feds (in)activity this morning?? August 5 at 9:46 pm 
�Good news, your equity line and business line of credit rates remain the same as yesterday, as the Fed held short-term rates steady today. Why? Because despite unemployment concerns, the economy is doing fine (1.4% growth year to date-- thank you exports!), core inflation is under control at this point, gas prices have dropped over 6% recently and it's more prudent to maintain a steady helm when the economy appears relatively balanced. Eric T. Trailer, Principal
10 responses so far ↓
1 Rob Beland // Jul 13, 2007 at 6:06 pm
The cash is clearly personal property. Had it not been found during the showing and the buyer found it a year later then it becomes a matter of “karma”
Does he keep the cash or does he try and contact the seller and return the money???
I’m sure anybody that comments here will state that they would call the seller and return the cash but can we please be honest??? I would keep the cash if I found it and so would you and you and you and you…
2 Diane Aurit // Jul 14, 2007 at 9:48 am
Rob, you are so cynical. I too believe that the cash is personal property no matter when it is found. Then it is no different than if you found a wad of money on the street. Some like Rob would keep it. I on the other hand, would give it back to it’s rightful owner and I think I am not the only one!
3 Athol Kay // Jul 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm
What money?!?! No money here. We didn’t find any money. We had the floor redone a few months back and had the damnest time with the first contractor just disappearing on us and we’re still trying to find him. Second guy did a great job though don’t ya think.
4 Mirjam // Jul 14, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I guess most people would keep it. However, I’d like to believe in the good of people and would say that most people would give it back, or at least inform their RE agent about it so they can contact the other party.
5 Bart Marchioni // Jul 14, 2007 at 3:57 pm
What about the fact that the money belonged to a man who “died at a ripe old age”. Therefore, the money would technically belong to his heirs.
6 Ann // Jul 17, 2007 at 12:50 pm
This has the makings of a great bar exam question . . . ugh.
7 Kevin Boer, Realtor, Alain Pinel Realtors // Jul 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Ann: Or perhaps even the state real estate exam!
8 Sandy // Jul 20, 2007 at 9:24 am
I have a feeling this is one of those cases where what should happen and what would happen would not be the same thing. I second what Athol said…
9 majid // Oct 10, 2007 at 11:16 pm
u guys dont know nothing, the guys whos house it is would take it if he knew about it, soo technically its not his., therefore he can keep it until some reclaims it. until then he can keep it ,its personal prepoerty because it was not attached to the land in any way .
10 jude daniel odi // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:39 am
deciding this matter will certainly require one going outside property law. we could view it from the dimension of sale of goods, contract or even apply equity. now the phrase cavaet emptor suggests all that needs to known is made known before a transaction is completed. now it would be presume that all awareness have been made before the consumation of the transaction. in contract, the last action afterwhich the contract cannot be rescinded is acceptance. on these two grounds, the buyer is entitle to the money. however, the relationship of land to the money bears no serious attachement. the land here only help the old man to save his case. think of it this way, supposing before he dies, the oldman decided to aliante his interest in the land, would he have given it away with the money? NO, therefore, his executor should have the money. that is equitable enough.
Leave a Comment