## Facts

- Clyde E. Morgan and Helen Morgan owned a farm in Bedford County, Tennessee.
- Max Wiser and Ed McClarty entered the farm with a metal detector and located a cache of gold coins buried in an iron pot.
- The coins were five-dollar gold pieces, none dated later than 1861.
- The coins were found approximately eight to twenty inches below the surface; the site showed no recent digging, and the container appeared to have decomposed.
- The Morgans sued seeking return of the coins or damages, alleging trespass and asserting superior rights as landowners (not as true owners).
- The defendants denied finding coins on the Morgans’ land and asserted that, as “treasure trove,” the coins belonged to the finders against all except the true owner.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee should apply the treasure-trove doctrine to award buried gold coins to the finders rather than the landowners, absent statute or prior Tennessee precedent.
2. Whether the trial court erred by limiting discovery about where the coins were found before deciding the governing legal rule.
3. Whether summary judgment for the finders was proper when the landowners’ claim depended on establishing the location of the find and the applicable ownership presumption.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants and remanded.
- The court declined to adopt the traditional treasure-trove rule as Tennessee law.
- The court held that property embedded in the soil is presumptively owned by the landowner, not the finder.
- Because the governing legal premise used by the trial court was incorrect, and because the find location remained a disputed and material fact, summary judgment was improper.
- Further proceedings were required to determine where the coins were found and to apply the landowner-favoring presumption.

## Legal Principles

- In Tennessee, the traditional treasure-trove rule awarding title to the finder (against all but the true owner) is not adopted.
- When found property is embedded in or part of the soil, ownership is presumed to be in the owner of the land, absent proof of a superior claim.
- Rules governing found property should protect the landowner’s right to exclusive possession and avoid rewarding conduct that encourages trespass.
- Summary judgment is improper when a material factual dispute exists (such as the location of the find) and when the trial court’s legal rule controlling ownership is erroneous.

## Conclusion

The appellate court rejected treasure trove in Tennessee and adopted a presumption that valuables embedded in the soil belong to the landowner, reversing summary judgment for the finders and remanding for factfinding on the location of the coins and application of the landowner presumption.


Morgan v. Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)