## Facts

- Four minors entered a wooded, overgrown McHenry County parcel owned by William and Gladys Stevens and found a large amount of paper currency in or near a mound of earth.
- Evidence showed the property appeared “abandoned,” with junk piles and trails, and no visible “no trespassing” signage; children commonly used the land, and the owners acquiesced.
- The record was unclear whether the money had been deliberately buried or how it was packaged when discovered (loose or bundled).
- The minors turned the money over to law enforcement after the discovery was reported.
- The sheriff filed a declaratory judgment action to determine rights to the currency among the sheriff (custodian), the landowners, the minor finders, and other named parties.
- The trial court denied claims by the sheriff, the landowners, and a state official, and awarded the money to the minor finders under the Illinois lost-property statute, subject to the superior claim of any true owner.
- The landowners appealed, asserting the minors were trespassers and arguing the money was mislaid on their land, giving them a superior right.

## Issues

1. Whether the minors were trespassers whose entry would defeat or reduce their rights as finders.
2. Whether the currency was properly classified as lost, mislaid, or abandoned property for purposes of determining priority between landowners and finders.
3. Whether the Illinois estrays/lost-property statute applied to money found on privately owned land and whether the minors sufficiently complied with it.
4. Whether landowners who were not the true owners had standing to challenge the finders’ statutory compliance or otherwise assert a superior possessory right.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the declaratory judgment awarding the currency to the minors as finders, subject to any later claim by the true owner.
- The court upheld the finding that the minors were not trespassers given the property’s condition, lack of warning signs, and the owners’ acquiescence to public entry.
- Because the evidence did not clearly show intentional placement, the court treated the currency as lost (not mislaid or abandoned).
- The court held the lost-property statute applied and that the minors substantially complied by delivering the money to authorities and awaiting a true owner’s claim.
- The court ruled the landowners, lacking proof of true ownership, had no superior right to the currency and lacked standing to object to the minors’ statutory compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Rights in found property generally rank: (1) true owner, (2) finder who satisfies statutory conditions, then (3) others, including landowners, absent a separate superior legal interest.
- A finder’s claim is not defeated by alleged trespass where the factfinder reasonably determines the entry was not trespassory, including where owners acquiesce in public use and provide no effective notice excluding entry.
- When evidence is ambiguous as to whether property is lost or mislaid, a court may treat it as lost where that classification is consistent with governing law and the evidentiary record.
- Illinois’s lost-property statutory scheme can apply to property found on private land; substantial compliance (such as prompt delivery to law enforcement and permitting notice/claim procedures to operate) may suffice.
- A landowner who is not the true owner generally lacks standing to contest a finder’s compliance with lost-property statutory procedures as a basis to transfer the property to the landowner.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed that the minors, as non-trespassory finders who substantially complied with Illinois lost-property procedures, had the better right to the found currency over the landowners, while preserving any superior claim of the true owner.


Hendle v. Stevens, 224 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 586 N.E.2d 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1992)