CASE BY CASE

---

Another recent case in volved a claim of defamation brought against the writer of a letter to the editor in a small-town newspaper. A news article in the paper reported on the upcoming closing of a downtown grocery that had been in business for 50 years. Three days later, the newspaper printed a letter to the editor that blamed the closing of the grocery store on the store’s landlord. Calling him a “ruthless speculator,” among other things, the writer accused the landlord of forcing the store out of business by charging “exorbitant rent.” The letter stated that the landlord’s “self-centered greed” caused the grocery’s demise.

The landlord responded to the letter to the editor with a defamation action against its author. The lawsuit was dismissed because the state constitution’s free expression clause shielded the letter writer from liability. To distinguish between statements of opinion, which are protected, and assertions of fact, which are not, the court looked at all the surrounding circumstances. In each instance, the offending parts of the letter were found to be opinions. The context of the letter as a whole showed it to be an exercise in venting frustrations and opinions about the loss of a valued downtown business. Finally, the fact that the letter was an expression of protected opinion was confirmed by its very location in the newspaper’s opinion pages, a traditional forum for the robust exchange of viewpoints.

Finders, Not Keepers
While installing a new driveway for a customer, the owner of a paving company and his employee unearthed a glass jar containing rolls of gold coins wrapped in paper. They collected, cleaned, and inventoried the gold pieces. The coins were worth many thousands of dollars.

At first, the finders agreed to split the coins between themselves, with the company owner retaining possession. After the two had a falling out over ownership of the coins, the company owner gave them to the customer on whose land they were found. The other finder then sued for possession of the coins.

The finder of the coins argued that under the “treasure trove” doctrine he should have the right to possess the found property against the entire world, except the rightful owner, regardless of where the property was found. The state court reviewed the law on found property and held that the landowner was entitled to possession of the coins, to the exclusion of all but the true owner.

The doctrine of treasure trove, and its use of a “finders keepers” rule, had never been adopted in the state where the coins were found. Even if it were otherwise, the court was ready to discard the rule as antiquated and unfair. The doctrine encourages trespassers to roam at large over the property of others in search of hidden treasure, contrary to the reasonable expectations of modern-day landowners.

San Diego Law Firm
San Diego office: 2828 University Avenue, Suite 102, San Diego, CA 92104
Carmel Valley office: 12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92130

Terms of Use    Privacy Policy
© 2001, 2006 San Diego Law Firm    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Law Firm Website by LawMarkets.com; Website design by