Paset v. Old Orchard Bank & Trust Co.
378 N.E.2d 1264 · Appellate Court of Illinois · 1978
Facts
On May 8, 1974, Bernice Paset, a safety deposit box subscriber at Old Orchard Bank, found $6,325 in currency on a chair in an examination booth within the bank's safety deposit vault. Paset notified bank officials and turned the money over to them. Bank officials informed her that if the owner was not located within one year, she could have the money. The bank attempted to locate the owner by contacting customers who had been in the vault area around the time of discovery, but no one claimed the money after a year. When Paset requested the money, the bank refused to deliver it, stating its obligation to hold it for the true owner. The safety deposit vault area was restricted to bank employees and customers, requiring verification and escort for entry.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in the circuit court. The circuit court judge found the money "deemed mislaid," concluded the estray statute was not applicable, and ordered the bank to continue holding the money as bailee or trustee for the true owner. The plaintiff appealed this order to the present court, which reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
Issue
The legal question is whether a finder of cash in a bank's safety deposit vault examination booth can acquire ownership under the Illinois estray statute, and how common law concepts of lost and mislaid property apply to such a situation, especially given the restricted nature of the finding location.
Holding
The court held that the Illinois estray statute applies to the money found by Paset. Ownership of the $6,325 vested in Paset, the finder, after the statutory period elapsed without the true owner claiming it.
Rule
The Illinois estray statute applies to property deemed "lost," and its principal purposes are to encourage the return of property to the true owner and to reward honest finders if the property remains unclaimed. When there is ambiguity as to whether property is lost (unintentionally separated from owner) or mislaid (intentionally placed and forgotten), public policy dictates resolving the ambiguity in favor of presuming the property was lost, thereby allowing the estray statute to apply. The statute's application is not precluded by the property being found in a restricted, private area, nor by a fiction of constructive possession by the premises owner, as the statute imposes a duty on "any person finding any property" to comply with its provisions. While the owner of the premises (the bank) may temporarily hold the property as custodian, the estray statute ultimately governs the transfer of ownership to the finder if the true owner does not appear within the legislatively designated time.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.