Theft by omission?

[Mandrivnyk]

Hi!

So, a house in our neighbourhood was recently abandoned by it’s owners. A friend and I ended up going inside, because we heard an horrible howling… it was horrible inside, absolute squalor, and we found bits and pieces of dead puppies lying in one of the bedrooms. One, still needing to be weaned, managed to survive and I took it home and have been trying to help it survive. But that’s not the question - just the explanation of why I was there in the first place.

On the property, we also found a musical instrument that’s in pretty good shape. I’m not sure whether a young person who lived there 3-4 years ago might have left it behind as something on loan from an area band, or if it was something they owned and abandoned. There were a few other instruments.

What do you think moral obligations are in trying to find a possible other owner of the instrument? I’ve been trying to get in touch with the band that may have loaned the instrument, to see if they have anything of that type missing, but it would be awful nice if I could keep it.

 

[passus]

Hi,

What happened to the puppies? Do you think that some larger predatory animal found its way inside the building and attacked them, or do you think that someone killed them?

All properties, “abandoned” or not, are still owned by somebody, whether it be the original owner, the bank, or the county or state. Although you had a justified reason to enter the house when you found the puppies, it would have been far better for you to have called the police and let them investigate the situation, which depending on the circumstances (as I touched on, above) may have been the scene of a crime.

Regardless, you and your friend were trespassing on the abandoned property the first time you entered the home. For you to trespass again to take items from within the home would be theft and a punishable crime.

 

[sanvean]

I’ve known the couple who were living there, as well as the previous owners for the past 25 years, and as well as why they left and have no intention to return. The property has been reported as abandoned. I sincerely doubt, however, that they slaughtered the puppies - considering where we live, and the fact that there are numerous wide open entrances to the house, it’s certainly possible a larger predator entered, but I would expect it’s far more likely that mother of the pups had something to do with it. Hard to say.

 

[Mandrivnyk]

I’ve known the owners of the home, as well as the previous owners, for the past 25 years, as well as why they left and have no intention of returning. That has nothing to do with my question, however.

I sincerely doubt that they had anything to do with killing the puppies. Considering where we live, and the numerous open entrances to the property, it is entirely possible a predatory animal entered, but I think it’s far more likely one of the parents of the pups had something to do with it. Hard to say. However, long before I posted this message, the property was reported - by me. That, too, however, has little to do with the question.

 

[Monica37]

I would be very careful with this. My nephew spent a weekend in jail and several thousand dollars doing just that very thing.

As far as the sin, I would talk to your priest and ask him what to do.

You actually reminded me that I did something similar recently. We are moving and trying to sell our house and visiting family so I went in a complete rush to a department store, bought a whole buch of stuff but realized when I got to the parking lot that I had left 2 items in the cart without paying (totaling $2). I didn’t have time to go back in and planned to rectify, but I’m a little afraid to admit to them that I left withput paying for the items. I have thought about getting the items again and paying for them then asking the cashier to just put them back without taking them off my charges.
Anyway, I have to remember to confess this next time

 

[passus]

…but I’m a little afraid to admit to them that I left withput paying for the items.

I wouldn’t do it if I were you. Department stores which prosecute shoplifters seem to have a hard time understanding what “accidents” are. Add the $2 to the collection plate.

 

[Shin]

I believe St. Anthony the Great, once saw a pile of gold gleaming in the desert. . . and walked on by. It disappeared, a temptation of the devil.

Another monk was walking with his spiritual father in the desert, and saw a pea lying on the sand. He asked, “Father, should I pick it up?” and his father said in shock, “Why ever would you? Did you leave it there?”

And so they walked on.

I suppose if it was to be destroyed being there, one might save the instrument. If it was out on the curb, with the trash, one might take it.

But inside the house?

No. Leave it, do not take it, if you took it, return it safely.

Offer it up to God, and take that offering with you instead.

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

All properties, “abandoned” or not, are still owned by somebody, whether it be the original owner, the bank, or the county or state. Although you had a justified reason to enter the house when you found the puppies, it would have been far better for you to have called the police and let them investigate the situation, which depending on the circumstances (as I touched on, above) may have been the scene of a crime.

that’s a little inaccurate. when an owner of property both intends to relinquish title and abandons possession, that chattel is considered “abandoned” (as opposed to “lost”). The finder/subsequent possessor of the chattel acquires title, so long as the original possessor had lawful title to the chattel (in most cases). Here, the obvious issue is whether the homeowner had lawful title. The less obvious issue is whether the foreclosure action includes chattels left on the property. I am aware that your location is Canada, but this is all pursuant to common law (which a number of Canadian jurisdictions still apply).

Regardless, you and your friend were trespassing on the abandoned property the first time you entered the home. For you to trespass again to take items from within the home would be theft and a punishable crime.

again, a little inaccurate. yes, they were trespassing, but they had a privilege to trespass due to necessity (pain and distress of a human or animal). Also, the home is not “abandoned” in the same sense as the chattels-- abandoned real property is another matter altogether. Nor would removing those items be theft if she believed that she had a legitimate claim to their title (by operation of abandoned chattels).

so anyway, most jurisdictions require finders of property that is not obviously abandoned to treat it as lost property and make reasonable efforts to identify the owner. The circumstances here probably require you to treat the chattels as lost, and make an effort to identify the rightful owners. if after reasonable effort and time, you cannot find anyone with a lawful claim, they’re yours. Each jurisdiction varies as to what constitutes “reasonable effort” (its usually proportionate to the item’s value) and “reasonable time” (again, related to value).