The two Sedgwick County workers who turned in $17,000 they found in an old paint can deserve kudos for their honesty. But do they also deserve the money? That’s doubtful.
After their supervisors failed to trace the money, the workers sued the county, saying the money rightfully belongs to them. But the workers found the money while on the job, which argues for the windfall going to the Household Hazardous Waste Facility where they work. A better idea might be distributing it among worthy local charities.
You wonder if the legal route could have been avoided if the workers had received a small reward for turning in the money. What would it hurt? Honesty is its own reward, but sometimes a little cash doesn’t hurt, either.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
27 Comments
No good deed will go unpunished.
I believe the law on this is that you turn the money into the police, if no one claims it after a period of time you get the property.
I don’t think being a city employee should have anything to do with it.
The money belongs to the Sedgwick County government — where it would be divided evenly among the five county commissioners.
Wasn’t there a thread on this yesterday?
Agree with Proudman!
Although the paint can was dropped off for disposel. That could be technicially determined as county property, so long as it is in their hands. Even if it was considered trash.
Let’s see what the court says. I would be interested in their ruling.
I think since the money went unclaimed because of death and no relatives the money should be returned to the men. I would hope that they in turn would be generous to area charities.
The finders stated “If we find stuff that’s good or reusable, we give it away free to the public,” he explained. “If nobody takes it, we’d be the first ones take it off the shelf.”
I for one would have taken the money, if it were given away for free–I am the public. Otherwise, I will be willing to represent either party in the case. My fee is $125 per hour.
The workers are correct to sue. They did the right thing in even reporting their find. They did not have to do so. The cash should go to them.
If the property, i.e., the money, was that of a decedent without heirs, there is a statute which says it (the money) is to escheat to the State. If it (the money) is determined to be abandoned property, there is a statutory scheme for dealing with it which will, if the property remains unclaimed for a period as set out in the statutes, result in it being transferred to the State Treasurer.
It will indeed be interesting to see what the court does; however, “finders keepers” is not, to the best of my knowledge, a legal principle; and, should the court determine the employees should retain the funds, then the Internal Revenue Code dictates that it be treated as gross income, subject to taxation (the so-called “treasure trove” theory).
Money should have been returned to the men.
That’s all there is to it.
I think that the City Council should give the money to a consultant to study whether or not a consultant is needed to review the need for parking for the new arena.
The $17,000 should cover about the first three hours of the consultants work.
(Note: this is sarcasm in the extreme.)
Dude should have stuck it straight into his pocket. what was he thinking?
The money should be donated to charity. The men don’t deserve it and neither does the county. Technically, the money belongs to the State of Kansas. They know who it belonged to. Unclaimed “intestate” property belongs to the state.
Seems to be some confusion here. These were county, not city workers. The recovery was made on county, not city, property. The county, not city, is the one hiring a consultant.
Different entities entirely.
It is hard to decide without all of the background information. Question: were the workers spanked as children, do they smoke, are they legal citizens?
They should first spank the workers, secondly, make them go to a restaurant and overeat, and finish by making them smoke a cigarette. If they survive this, give them their job back so no illegals will get their job. Finally, they should be punished severely for being honest.
This whole thing would not have become a public debate if they had just taken the money and stuffed it in their pockets and kept their mouth shut. What were their parents thinking when they taught their children to be honest?
I wonder what the lesson will be to anyone reading this story. Let me guess. If you find money, don’t tell anyone, stuff it in your pockets and run like Hell.
Then we wonder why people are not honest anymore?
red, and all others similarly situated: I’m not aware of what the policy of the county is for situations like this. I do know, just from being on this earth a while, that the “stuffing [the money] in their pockets” would eventually lead to a third party eventually learning of it. This might lead to a job loss, if there is a policy in place requiring some attempt to locate the owner and it was not followed; and, if there was a vindictive sort around, a discussion of why the income wasn’t reported for tax purposes with a friendly IRS agent, as $8500 ($17000/2) would get some attention from those good people.
VT – I didn’t mean to imply that I think it is the moral thing to do to just take the money and run. But I was just commenting on how others might perceive this as the moral lesson to be learned from this story.
You’re right, there is always something or someone who will find out after the fact and that complicates the situation even further.
But in today’s society, I do not think many people even think that far ahead. Do you? Our society is so instant gratification and the basic moral compass seems to be lacking. I just wished that the county could have handled this particular situation better because now it looks like they are the bad guys in the story and are just wanting the money for themselves.
red, wasn’t thinking that at all, but posted to provide some information for the “instant gratification” types, with a (perhaps unfounded) hope that the information so provided would at least cause thinking to occur.
Yep, the county blew it; the money should, at a minimum, been forwarded to the State Treasurer as “unclaimed property”.
(Dang, gotta think before hitting post.)
red, if you took the 11:57 AM post as a “slap” at you, I apologize; it surely wasn’t meant that way, as the body of your earlier post to which I was responding was clearly (at least to me) stating you didn’t think this was the right thing to do.
I did not take it as a slap, VT, but thanks for replying with apology. I just wanted to make sure I did not leave a wrong impression in my first posting.
I believe honesty is the best policy and I have certainly taught my children that concept. But sometimes life looks to be unfair and that’s when we have to look inside ourselves and see the bigger picture.
Thanks again for your kindness and I appreciate all your postings. They are insightful viewpoints. I learn so much from this blog.
The money belongs to someone that died 15 years ago, obliviously it sat somewhere during that 15 years.Whoever donated it must have had it as part of an Estate inherence.Legally by law, the state has to hold onto an estate for two years, hire a private investigator to find a relative or next of kin.If no relative or no next of kin is found, then the state can proceed onto the next legal procedure which is deciding who can legally claim it.The bad thing about the private investigator is that legally that investigator can charge up to 50% of that estate value.Because of the legal procedures involved, there goes at lease haft or more of the money.I do wonder if the employees of that recycle center signed wavers when they were hired in.
Correction on the 2:07 pm comment –The bad thing about the private investigator is that legally that investigator can charge the relative or next of kin up to 50% of that estate value or the investigator is contracted by the state at a fix rate, minimum amount if a relative or next of kin is found, maximum amount if no relative or next of kin is found.
I still say ya gotta feel for these guys.
Imagine, you and your coworker are sorting through every imaginable sort of cast off chemicals and you find all this cash.
PROBABLY the thing they thought was “Hey this probably belongs to some old eccentric person who accidentaly brought it in! We can’t keep this. We should report it.”
And then you do report it and there is no locatable owner.
J Rs rules are they would get the money AND a commendation for their honesty.
That paint can had to have been brought to the Hazardous Waste site where the two county workers found it. I agree with VT that the money should go to the unclaimed property in Topeka and let them figure it out. Who can prove now that it was them that took the paint can to the dump site? With $17,000 up for grabs, people within 1000 miles will line up saying that the paint can belonged to their beloved grandpa or uncle or some other dead relative.
What I was thinking, though, what exactly is the policy of the dump site if the workers find something that is reusable? Are employees allowed to take stuff home they find in the dump? Is this a routine practice? There are many factors in the story that we don’t know that might just make the whole situation a different color.
I was talking with a good friend of mine yesterday afternoon who is a retired officer. He served in both the WPD and the SO and retired in 1980. He told me that AT THAT TIME, if an city/county employee even wanted to BID on an item at the abandoned property auction that was held annually or semi-annually (don’t recall which), that employee had to have prior written approval from his senior supervision. Vaughn has stated the applicable statutes quite correctly and appropriately, but this particular incident is just unique enough, the only thing I’m sure of is that it might make a hell of a bar exam question. :)
Alladvantage Alived!You can earn money easily at your home.If you interested in go to this page ;http://user.chol.com/~tlswn128/aglocoeng.htm