The Offer

[ppratt]

OK I'm back the owner didn't partner up so why does his share get cut you have the partner so your share gets cut. Your so bull headed, why arent you getting this? He ownes it you don't he doesnt have a partner you do. If I was the owner I would be loving this. Just sitting back saying this guy doesn't get it. It's like when you see the jehovah witnesses pull up in your driveway to talk, when your not jehovah witness. You ask if the offer was fair you have page after page saying NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! so why do you want to beat a dead horse. it will never be fair in our eyes no matter what you say. You didn't approach the owner/matter in the correct way, and got burn. I'm starting to see why the owner isn't budging it's kinda funny. Be sure to leave the map with your kids or someone, when you kick the bucket (we all die).

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Frankn]

ppratt, did you read my post above yours?? I worked my ass off to find the location, My partner worked his ass off to find this location. That makes 2 very hard working people. Now what did the land owner do to earn a share? NOTHING! So why should he get more than me? Why should he get more than my partner? You say the cache is his. Bull! It doesn't belong to anyone untill it sees the light of day. There is no record of him owning the cache. The only record of the cache sayes that it belongs to someone else.
You said I didn't approach the land owner in the right manor? What would you suggest, feeding him a line of bull instead of going with the truth? I don't care how many people say yes or no. I form my own opinions of what to do. I glean the the best info offered and drop the bull. You see, after 74 years, I have a fine tuned bull Ship filter.

 

[maipenrai]

Frankn, I get your point, I think everyone gets your point. The fact is, that the property owner IS the owner of the treasure. He invested in the property, probably worked hard to get the money, and wants a good return. Now he finds out, not only he can get a good return, but an outrageously great return. He has invested in the land, and thats all he has to do to earn a share, a share than he will determine. I cant believe that you said he has done nothing! Maybe he hasnt done anything for the treasure, but he did do something, by investing in a good property. Please dont tell him that, to use as a bargaining chip, that would be the last you will see of that property. The longer this drags on, the lower his offer will be. How much did you invest? 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000? And for that amount, you want millions in return, over the 50/50 split?

 

[ppratt]

Did you work hard before or after you talk to him? If before then you approached it wrong. Nothing wrong with a little research before hand, but before all this so called money was spent maybe a talking to face to face would have been a good idea. In all your years I would think you would have learned that. Anyway you cut it he owns it, and I'm loving it. If you are still working hard on it then your a fool. How much money have you invested? You dont have to be down to the last red cent. over a 1,000, over 10,000, over 100K. Its your story how much have you spent to think you deserve what your asking? I can careless about time, I spent many of hours in college at the library that doesnt mean I was reading books.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Kentucky, you quoted khpony, but your reply sounds like it was directed to me. You don't seem to get it. The fairness of the split in relationship to the effort and cost involved are far more importion to me than the money. Yes more important to me than the money! I have a strong sence of ethics ground into me from my upbringing. It's kind of like the old saying "Death before dishonor". It's like that post way back that suggested dumping my partner an just spliting with the land owner. I could not do that, even for millions. Sounds against the norm, but that's the way I live.

I wasn't referring to you, but the same applies to all who say that others don't get it, or don't understand treasure hunting, because they don't agree with you.
If your refusal to hunt for this treasure because you didn't get your desired split is ethics, then you're right, I don't get it. I don't see ethics in that at all.

The owner of the ground is the owner of everything thats IN the ground. He purchased the treasure when he purchased the land it was buried in. HE OWNS IT. Why is that such a hard concept?
He didn't contract with you to research what may be on that land. You took it upon yourself to do that, so anything he offers you would be a plus. Be happy with what you can get. That seems to me to be closer to ethics than what you're saying.

 

[Frankn]

Now you guys have my curosity up! If you buried a million dollars on some one elses land, and the property was sold, do you own the million, or does the land owner own it? Reply please!

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Now you guys have my curosity up! If you buried a million dollars on some one elses land, and the property was sold, do you own the million, or does the land owner own it? Reply please!

If it were on/in the ground when the land owner purchased the property I would say the land owner owns it. Have you ever bought a piece of property that said in the contract that you own the land, but not what may be buried there? It's called PROPERTY for a reason.

 

[lastleg]

Frank, you might want to see a real estate lawyer to see if you can claim the mineral rights to this property. Chances are the land owner
never obtained them when he bought. You might pick them up for a pittance of the amount of hard work you and your partner, of course,
have put in. When you get the mineral rights you and your partner, of course, can bring in an oil well drilling rig and dig the daylights out
of his property and he wouldn't be legally able to do anything about it.

 

[maipenrai]

Mineral rights have nothing to do with something that happens to be buried there, two completely different things. I thought everyone on this site knew that. As for who owns the "treasure", there are always people that will claim it, and some do actually have rights to it. Loot from a robbery, might still be owned to the bank ,or to the insurance company that paid out the claim. Of course we all know how the government can lay claim to just about anything, from treasure trove, to something buried last week, drug money. But if there is no one to legally claim it, then I would say it belongs to the land owner, certainly not to an outside party, that did some research and now claims it it his. So even if he never knew something of value was buried there, its still his. He owns the treasure, junk, tree stumps and thing on his property, except maybe the deer and birds.

 

[Frankn]

I am having trouble getting a direct answer! It appears that most are saying the land owner can sell someone elses property just because it is on his land. Can Walmart sell the cars on it's parking lot? Can your bank give your money away? I think orginal ownership has more to do with it than location.
Let me state the facts and reask the question.
-The person that hid the money, had legal title to it, that is it was not stolen.
-The person that hid the money did not own the property on which it was placed.
-The owner of the property did not know the money was placed there.

NOW! who does the cache belong to? The person that cached the money or the present land owner.

 

[Silver Searcher]

Why didn't the legal owner hide it on his own property, or relatives. The question for this post is do you think he will accept the 1/3 cut? Frank.

SS

 

[Frankn]

SS, You didn't answer it either!!!!!!!

 

[Silver Searcher]

SS, You didn't answer it either!!!!!!!View attachment 636502

To much to answer that will please you I think, possession is nine tenths of the law.

SS

 

[CoinFetcher]

Just take the 50 50 split.

 

[Frankn]

SS, If possession is 9/10s of the law, why do you have to turn over your finds to your gov.?

 

[Frankn]

Coinfetcher, I have thought about it, but then I would miss all the contriversy. lol Anyone can take the easy way out, but I was looking for the loophole.

 

[Silver Searcher]

SS, If possession is 9/10s of the law, why do you have to turn over your finds to yourView attachment 636508 gov.?

Frankn..I only have to turn over finds such as two or more coins over 3 hundred years old, made of silver or gold, ancient artifacts of the same age...silver or gold, anything else I keep. And if the state want to keep them, then they have to buy them from me, and I split with the land owner 50/50, The land owner gets 50/50 Frankn were the stuff was buried. Just like your Cashe.

SS

 

[Silver Searcher]

Frankn...and don't forget the the treasures that are recovered here, were buried long before the current land owners aquired the land it was found on, yet they still get the 50/50 split.

SS

 

[Frankn]

Does the Gov. get a cut of the assessed value when they buy them?

 

[Silver Searcher]

Does the Gov. get a cut of the assessed value when they buy them?View attachment 636510

The government get nothing, it's the museums that have to find the money, the money is then split 50/50 with the land owner, and finder. The government just enforces the law.

SS