## Facts

- Leonard and Bernard Kapiloff bought a valuable stamp collection in 1976 for $150,400.
- The collection was later separated from the Kapiloffs by mistake and ultimately ended up inside a used dresser.
- Between 1979 and 1980, Robert L. Ganter bought the used dresser from a furniture store and discovered the stamp collection inside it.
- In 1982, Ganter brought the stamps to J. & H. Stolow, Inc., a stamp dealer, for appraisal and possible sale; Stolow circulated a sales catalogue.
- On February 1, 1983, Bernard Kapiloff saw an advertisement offering the stamps for sale, demanded their return, and asserted ownership.
- Ganter refused to return the collection, and the dispute arose over superior title as between the original owners and the finder and dealer.

## Issues

1. Whether a finder of valuable property discovered inside purchased furniture acquires a right superior to the original owner who later proves prior title.
2. Whether the circumstances supported a claim that the owners abandoned the stamp collection or otherwise transferred title.
3. Whether summary judgment for the Kapiloffs was proper given the record on ownership, finding, and any alleged transfer or abandonment.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for the Kapiloffs.
- The court held the Kapiloffs retained title as the true owners, and Ganter’s interest as a finder was subordinate once the owners came forward.
- The court rejected arguments that title passed through the furniture sale or through abandonment, gift, or other transfer.
- Because the material facts relevant to title were not genuinely disputed, the case was properly resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A finder of lost personal property acquires a qualified possessory right enforceable against all others except the true owner.
- Prior ownership and lawful possession control when the true owner is identified and asserts the right to possession.
- Purchase of a container or chattel does not, without manifested intent, transfer title to unknown and unbargained-for valuable contents.
- Abandonment requires intentional relinquishment of ownership; inadvertent loss or misplacement does not establish abandonment.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the dispositive facts are undisputed and only settled legal rules must be applied to those facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Kapiloffs’ proven prior ownership defeated the claims of the finder and dealer, and that no abandonment or transfer occurred merely because the stamps were discovered in a used dresser later sold; therefore, the Kapiloffs were entitled to possession as a matter of law.


Ganter v. Kapiloff, 69 Md. App. 97, 516 A.2d 611 (Ct. Spec. App. 1986)