Please provide explanation as to why each answer is True or false

Case 4: Corliss v. Wenner, 136 Idaho 417 (Ct. App. Id. 2001 (Mallor 15th Ed. p. 616)

In the fall of 1996, Jann Wenner hired Anderson Asphalt Paving to construct a driveway on his ranch. Larry Anderson, the owner of Anderson Asphalt Paving, and his employee, Gregory Corliss, were excavating soil for the driveway when they unearthed a glass jar containing paper-wrapped rolls of gold coins. Anderson and Corliss collected, cleaned, and inventoried the gold pieces dating from 1857 to 1914. The 96 coins weighed about four pounds. Initially, Anderson and Corliss agreed to split the coins among themselves, with Anderson retaining possession of all the coins. Subsequently, Anderson and Corliss argued over ownership of the coins, and Anderson fired Corliss. Anderson later gave possession of the coins to Wenner in exchange for indemnification on any claim Corliss might have against him regarding the coins.

After initially agreeing to split the gold coins, Corliss obtained a personal loan of nearly $9,000 from Anderson and signed a promissory note in which he pledged half of the coins as collateral. Sometime later Corliss and Anderson made a notation that the total amount owed on the note was $11,970, due April 1, 1997, with no further interest. Corliss offered to pay off the promissory note in exchange for half of the gold coins, but Anderson refused. Anderson demanded unconditional payment on the note. After Corliss sued Anderson and Wenner, Anderson counterclaimed against Corliss for judgment on the promissory note.

Corliss sued Anderson and Wenner for possession of some or all of the coins. Corliss contended that the coins should be considered treasure trove and awarded to him pursuant to the finders keepers rule of treasure trove. Wenner, defending both himself and Anderson, contended that he had the better right to possession of the gold coins.

The trial court held that the coins, having been carefully concealed for safekeeping, fit within the legal classification of mislaid property, to which the right of possession goes to the landowner. Alternatively, the court ruled that the coins, like the topsoil being excavated, were a part of the property owned by Wenner and that Anderson and Corliss were merely Wenner's employees.

On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals noted that there are five categories of found property:

1. Abandoned property: that which the owner has discarded or voluntarily forsaken with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person.

2. Lost property: that property which the owner has involuntarily and unintentionally parted with through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence and does not know the whereabouts.

3. Mislaid property: that which the owner has intentionally set down in a place where he can again resort to it, and then forgets where he put it.

4. Embedded property: that personal property which has become a part of the natural earth, such as pottery, the sunken wreck of a steamship, or a rotted-away sack of gold-bearing quartz rock buried or partially buried in the ground.

5. Treasure trove: a category exclusively for gold or silver in coin, plate, bullion, and sometimes its paper money equivalents, found concealed in the earth or in a house or other private place. Treasure trove carries with it the thought of antiquity, i.e., that the treasure has been concealed for so long as to indicate that the owner is probably dead or unknown. The finder of treasure trove has the right to possession of the property.

The Iowa Court of Appeals also determined: (1) the finder of abandoned or lost property gains the right of possession against the entire world except for the rightful owner regardless of the place of finding; (2) the owner of the property in which mislaid or embedded property is found has the right to possess it to safeguard the property for the true owner; and (3) Iowa did not recognize the common law category of treasure trove.

1. Because they were secreted with care in a specific place to protect them from the elements and from other people until such time as the original owner might return for them, the gold coins were not abandoned or lost property.
2. If Corliss is correct and the gold coins, which are tangible personal property, are treasure trove, the right of possession of the coins goes to Corliss and Anderson.
3. If the gold coins are considered to be embedded in the land or mislaid by the coins owner, then possession of the coins goes to Wenner as the owner of the property in which the coins were found.

4. Andersens counterclaim against Corliss for payment of the promissory note should be dismissed, because Corliss pledged as collateral gold coins in which he had no ownership interest.
5. Wenner obtains ownership of the coins, because they were lost, mislaid or abandoned by the coins rightful owner.