{"id":2359,"date":"2018-07-17T13:21:15","date_gmt":"2018-07-17T17:21:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/shatthemovies.com\/?p=2359"},"modified":"2024-09-07T20:22:18","modified_gmt":"2024-09-08T00:22:18","slug":"the-goonies-lost-treasure-and-maritime-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shatpod.com\/movies\/the-goonies-lost-treasure-and-maritime-law\/","title":{"rendered":"The Goonies, Lost Treasure and Maritime Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0The Goonies<\/em><\/a>, would they really have been able to keep the jewels Mikey got off the pirate ship? Or would the State have asserted ownership of the discovered \u201chistorical relics\u201d?<\/p>\n

If you haven\u2019t seen\u00a0The Goonies<\/em>, you should. \u00a0It\u2019s a classic 80s movie, and although it was directed by Richard Donner, the story was written by Stephen Spielberg, and the movie has his fingerprints all over it. \u00a0The\u00a0Blu-Ray edition\u00a0came out a couple of years ago, and we can recommend it. \u00a0For more nostalgia, check out\u00a0the cast reunion video<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0Empire<\/em>\u00a0magazine put together.<\/p>\n

Anyway, back to the question. \u00a0Law and the Multiverse has written about lost property before<\/a>, including treasure troves. \u00a0In this case the issue is complicated by two facts: 1) the movie is set in Oregon, so we have to apply Oregon law and 2) the treasure is on a boat.<\/p>\n

I. Oregon Law and Lost Property<\/h3>\n

As you might guess for a state high up on the west coast, there aren\u2019t too many Oregon cases dealing with treasure (just what was a 17th century pirate doing in northwest Oregon anyway?). \u00a0But there are enough to get some basic definitions.<\/p>\n

In Oregon, a treasure trove is the property of the finder and consists of\u00a0\u201c[m]oney or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden in the earth or other private place, the owner thereof being unknown.\u201d \u00a0Bergeron v. Aero Sales, Inc., 134 P.3d 964, 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting\u00a0Jackson v. Steinberg,<\/em>\u00a0186 Or. 129 (1948)). \u201cThe\u00a0treasure\u00a0must have been hidden or concealed so long as to indicate that its owner, in all probability, is dead or unknown.\u201d \u00a0Jackson v. Steinberg, 186 Or. at 140.<\/p>\n

Notably, \u201cthe ownership or possession of the land upon which [treasure trove or abandoned property] was found is immaterial.\u201d \u00a0Hill v. Schrunk, 292 P.2d 141, 142 (Or. 1956). \u00a0\u201cIt seems to be the principle respecting\u00a0treasure\u00a0trove, owing to its peculiar nature of being coin, that the present property is in the finder, as against every one but the true owner, provided that the true owner is unknown, and it matters not where or when the same is found, so that it is secreted in the earth or other private place.\u201d\u00a0Jackson<\/em>\u00a0at 144 (quoting Ferguson v. Ray, 44 Or. 557 (1904)).<\/p>\n

\"goonies

The Goonies’ Jewels<\/p><\/div>\n

One-Eyed Willie\u2019s ship (and thus the treasure) was hidden in an underground lagoon, which seems to count as both hidden in the earth and a private place. \u00a0One-Eyed Willie is obviously dead, and I don\u2019t recall any descendants being discussed in the movie, certainly not any known ones. \u00a0And it doesn\u2019t matter that the Goonies found the treasure on somebody else\u2019s land. \u00a0So the Goonies may have a legitimate claim to the jewels as part of a treasure trove.<\/p>\n

II. Admiralty Law<\/h3>\n

Here\u2019s where it gets sticky. \u00a0If the treasure is considered a treasure trove, then the answer is easy enough. \u00a0But the treasure wasn\u2019t buried underground as such; it was on a boat floating on an underground lake. \u00a0This means it might actually be a salvage operation, and salvage and treasure trove are mutually exclusive. \u00a0Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel,\u00a0459 F. Supp. 507, 525 (S.D. Fla. 1978),\u00a0aff\u2019d<\/em>, 621 F.2d 1340 (5th Cir. 1980),\u00a0aff\u2019d in part, rev\u2019d in part on other grounds<\/em>, 458 U.S. 670, (1982). \u00a0So what is salvage, exactly?<\/p>\n

\u201cSalvage\u201d is the compensation or reward allowed to persons by whose voluntary assistance to a ship at sea or its cargo, or both, have been saved in whole or in part from impending sea peril or by which such property has been recovered from actual peril or loss, as in cases of shipwreck, dereliction, or recapture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Am. Jur. 2d Salvage \u00a7 1. \u00a0Since the ship was still more-or-less seaworthy, this would seem to be a case of a derelict ship rather than a shipwreck. \u00a0If the Goonies had actually engaged in a salvage operation then they would not have any right to the ship or its contents but rather only to receive a salvage award. \u00a0That means no fair keeping the jewels, but the salvage award would be more than enough to compensate. \u00a0The problem is that the boat went sailing off into the ocean, and getting a salvage award can take years. \u00a0That\u2019s cold comfort when the evil Astoria Country Club is breathing down your neck.<\/p>\n

Hope is not yet lost, however. \u00a0Salvage only applies to ships that have not been abandoned by their owners. \u00a0Columbus\u2013America Discovery v. Atlantic Mut. Ins., 974 F.2d 450, 459 (4th Cir.1992). \u00a0When a ship has been abandoned, then a different law applies, the law of finds.<\/p>\n

\"Willie\u2019s

Willie\u2019s ship,\u00a0The Inferno<\/p><\/div>\n

Under the law of finds, the finder gets the ship and its contents, not a salvage award. \u00a0Helpfully for this case, abandonment can be inferred when neither the owner nor their heirs have attempted to reclaim the vessel for a considerable length of time. \u00a0See<\/em>,\u00a0e.g.<\/em>,\u00a0Marex Intern., Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel,\u00a0952 F.Supp. 825, 828-29 (S.D. Ga. \u00a01997) (holding that a vessel sunk in 1840 was properly considered abandoned). \u00a0Willie\u2019s ship,\u00a0The Inferno<\/em>, is certainly old enough to qualify as abandoned, and again there are no signs of any heirs. \u00a0Under the law of finds, the Goonies could sue to establish title to the ship and its contents. \u00a0If no heirs showed up to contest it, it would be theirs.<\/p>\n

Even under the law of finds there is a catch, however. \u00a0The Inferno<\/em>\u00a0may be an historic shipwreck. \u00a0If it is, then the court could impose an archaeological duty of care before handing over title. \u00a0Marex<\/em>, 952 F.Supp. at 829. \u00a0The Goonies would also have to show some reasonable prospect of success at recovering the ship. \u00a0Given the Goonies\u2019 fairly cavalier approach to treasure hunting (and the fact that the movie ends with the ship floating out to sea), bringing in some professional archaeologists and recovery experts might not be a bad idea.<\/p>\n

III. Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Whether the law of lost property or admiralty applies, the Goonies just might have a good claim to the treasure. \u00a0The law of lost property would probably treat them better, however.<\/p>\n

Originally Posted <\/span>by<\/span>\u00a0James Daily<\/a><\/span>\u00a0on\u00a0Law and the Multiverse<\/a><\/span><\/em>
\nSubscribe Now<\/strong><\/p>\n