A Question of Ethics

[pallasathena]

A few years ago, there was a news item in my local paper about a married couple who bought a house from an older couple who was moving to Florida. The older couple was the only couple who had ever lived in this house prior to the new couple. The old couple moves to Florida and the new couple moves into the house. The new couple decides to do some renovation on this house and start tearing up a wall to widen out a room (or something to that effect). In the process of doing this, they find an old black satchel which contains about $37,000.00. They call their realtor to ask for the old couple's phone number in Florida so they can call them to see if the money is theirs. When they call the couple, they said that it was theirs and that they had hidden it in the wall years ago. The younger couple gives the old couple their money back. The End.

When I showed this story to people I worked with, they said that the young couple were stupid. They felt that if you buy a house, whatever is in that house is yours to keep. I said that's unethical since you know that the younger couple didn't hide the money in the wall and that the old couple were the only ones who ever lived in that house prior. What do you think?

[Tenacious B]

I don't think there is any legal or moral obligation on their part to give the money to the old folks since they own the house, however it is extremely nice of them to do so.

[Noehelia]

That's easy. I would feel obligated to give the money back since 1. it's not mine and 2. when you buy a house you agree for whatever consists a house, not the personal belongings of the previous owners (unless explicitly stated on the contract).
However the difficult question for me would be: What if I bought a house 5 years ago, the old couple died 3 years ago and I found the money today. Would I try to find their heritor? I have no idea, there are many things to think over.

[suzyk]

If it were me, I'd be selfish and I'd keep it. But I like what the old couple did, even if the previous owners were going to sell it for profit. It wasn't theirs, and they did the right thing, as stupid they may seem to be to other people.

[apotheon]

I would have done the same thing as the younger couple. I could see why people would say; when you buy the house that you are entitled to things left in it. I would have given it back.

[thod]

This case would seem relevant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would say the question is if the parties intended to pass ownership of the contents of the house too. Simply because something is on your property does not make it yours. For example a stranger parks in your drive, you do not own the car. You can have it removed, claim compensation etc but there was no consent to pass ownership. The next question would be abandonment in which they would seem to have a strong case for keeping the cash.

From an ethics perspective I would say they are profiting, but the other party is suffering a loss. To make gains by creating loss to other people seems unethical. If you apply the golden rule of "do as you would like to be done by" then the cash should be returned.

[pandora4606]

In my personal opinion, the young couple did the right thing. Finders keepers is an excellent rule of thumb but even it has an exception. The exception being (at least in my mind) when you know who the property belongs too. Then the basic principle behind finders keepers is usurped.

[Jakalwarrior]

You ask them if they ever placed anything in the wall and if so what it was. If they are able to identify it then give it to em.
I know you said "The older couple was the only couple who had ever lived in this house prior to the new couple." but I like people a lot better when I dont give them a chance to screw me over so they can't show their colors.

[blueback]

Who forgets 37,000 dollars?

[PRBori]

"do unto others what you will like others do unto you", I stand by that dearly.

Since they knew for a fact that the older couple were the only ones that lived in that house, it made most sense to return what belong to them to begin with. They are older so any extra income they can have to enjoy the last few years after working hard and maybe raising a family was certainly a blessing.

I will admit however that such a behavior is rare, but those who behave that way will be bless with more than they can handle during their lifetime.

Now, in case they weren't able to trace back the original owners, I would probably call it a blessing for the family and ensure that the blessings be share with those less fortunate one way or another throughout their lifetime. That said, it doesn't mean that they should donated everything, but should devote most of their earnings to help others and stabilized the family if not already stable.

[Rayden]

Who forgets 37,000 dollars?

Geez, I thought I was the only one thinking this.

[TheLastMohican]

I think I would announce the discovery of the money, but I would ask for quite a bit of explaining as to why it was there. Who hides $37,000 in a wall? The Corleones?

[Antares]

"do unto others what you will like others do unto you"

True; but if it were I, I can't really expect the new couple to give it back as though it they were obliged to. If they didn't, I won't blame them. The most I can do is say: "Drat!" and move on with my life. I could keep the money and not beat myself over it, but I would give it back since it'd be nice to do and my family's sufficiently well-off to not need that money.

[blueback]

Personally, if I forgot 37,000 dollars in a wall I wouldn't expect the new owners of the house to give it back to me. Therefore, I shouldn't be expected to give it back to them.

The idea that found wealth is somehow a karmic curse and that you have to make up for it by giving away a certain portion of the money is absurd.

[merid]

If it was 100 I would keep it, but something that could drastically change your life I would give back. It wasn't mine and I didn't earn it.