Closely review the 2007 Cleveland Plain Dealer/Chicago Tribune article entitled "Contractor, Homeowner at Odds Over Fortune Found in Bathroom Walls"

1.The case caption says that Helen Sollars (aka Helen Kelly) and the Estate of Helene Valoff are the plaintiffs in the case and that the City of Milwaukie is the Defendant. Why is the City of Milwaukie a party in the case? Why did the City of Milwaukie fail to appear (file any documents with) the Court of Appeals?

2.Compare this case with the Ohio case.

a. What were the legal issues that were at the core of the treasure trove case?

b. Are the legal issues that the Sollars case is based upon the same as those presented by the treasure trove case? If not, how are they different?

3.What were the conflicting arguments of the buyer and the estate in the Sollars case about the language of the contract? (Please use legal terminology.)

4.Do you feel that the language of the contract was unambiguous? If so, what do you think the clear meaning of the contract was? In other words, do you think the Court of Appeals or the trial court was right? (Remember that the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on this, so we don't yet have the Last Word on the matter and you can't say that "the Oregon Court of Appeals was right because it had the last word.")

5.Rewrite the "personal property" provision of the contract to make it clearer in regard to unknown property on the premises.