PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN V TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND $
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_______________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 26, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee/
Cross Appellant,
v
No. 173507
LC No. 93-451823-CF
TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS;
FORTY GOLD KRUGERRAND COINS;
and FIFTY GOLD CORONA COINS,
Defendants,
and
SQUARE LAKE HILLS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross Appellee,
and
EASTMAN FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee/
Cross Appellee.
_______________________________________
Before: MacKenzie, P.J., and Jansen and T.R. Thomas,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
In this forfeiture action, defendant Square Lake Hills Condominium Association appeals as of
right, and plaintiff cross appeals, from the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition and
awarding found property to defendant Eastman Fire Protection Company. We affirm.
I.
Employees of defendant Eastman Fire Protection Company found valuable property hidden in a
fire extinguisher when the company was hired to perform routine inspections and maintenance of
extinguishers in the common areas of a condominium complex. The fire extinguisher company called the
police, and a drug-sniffing dog “alerted” on the property in a manner consistent with the presence of
illegal narcotics.
Further investigation revealed that a convicted drug dealer had once lived in the building. The
fire extinguisher was first noticed in 1991 during routine inspection, although in viewing the facts in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party, we are not assuming that the extinguisher was not present
before that time. In any event, the convicted drug dealer last indicated living in the building in a 1985
arrest report.
Plaintiff filed this action for forfeiture pursuant to MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521).
Defendant Eastman Fire Protection Company claimed an interest as finder of the property pursuant to
MCL 434.21 et seq.; MSA 18.718(1) et seq. Defendant Square Lake Hills Condominium
Association, as owner of the common areas, filed a claim under several theories, including as landowner
under a concept known as locus in quo. The association also argued that it was the ultimate “finder”
because the fire extinguisher company had been acting as an employee or agent of the association when
the property was found.
Both defendants filed cross motions for summary disposition. The circuit court ruled that locus
in quo had not been adopted in Michigan and that the fire extinguisher company’s rights as finder were
superior to the landowner. The court further held that plaintiff had not shown a substantial connection
between the property and an illegal drug transaction. Accordingly, the court awarded the property to
the fire extinguisher company.
II.
Defendant Square Lake Hills Condominium Association argues that the locus in quo doctrine
should apply to award possession of found property to a landowner. The association also argues that
various other common law and equitable remedies should apply to vest possession in it. We disagree.
A prior statute was interpreted by this Court in Willsmore v Osceola Twp, 106 Mich App
671, 688; 308 NW2d 796 (1981), to be a “finders statute.” The prior statute was repealed in 1987
and replaced with the lost property act, MCL 434.21 et seq.; MSA 18.718(1) et seq. The statutory
language and the bill analysis prepared while the legislation was pending clearly provide that, when the
true owner cannot be located, the finder receives the property. Whether locus in quo was squarely
-2
rejected in Willsmore is immaterial; it has been squarely rejected by the Legislature. The circuit court
did not err in granting the finder a higher priority than the landowner.
Defendant Square Lake Hills Condominium Association also argues that the fire extinguisher
company owed fiduciary duties as its agent. No authority was cited which would compel the imposition
of a fiduciary or agency relationship.
III.
In the cross appeal, plaintiff argues that summary disposition was premature because
there remained a genuine issue of material fact about whether the property was forfeitable. We
disagree.
The dog’s response standing alone did not provide the necessary connection to contraband. In
re Forfeiture of $18,000, 189 Mich App 1; 471 NW2d 628 (1991). The drug dealer’s former
residence at the condominium project is speculative; the fire extinguisher was first noticed five years
after he had moved out (assuming he still lived there in 1985 when he reported that address to the
police). The state must show a substantial connection between the goods and an unlawful drug
transaction. In re Forfeiture of $5264, 432 Mich 242, 262; 439 NW2d 246 (1989). A motion for
summary disposition is an appropriate mechanism to test plaintiff's proofs to avoid a needless trial.
Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785, 788-789; 411 NW2d 859 (1987). Viewing the facts in a
light most favorable to the plaintiff, the nexus is so tenuous that reasonable minds could not differ. A
substantial connection could not be shown. The circuit court did not err by granting summary
disposition against plaintiff.
Affirmed.
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Terrence R. Thomas
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.