Rare Aircraft Control
...age of time or release of possession with intent to abandon, lost property differs because it is unintentional. 2. Putting aside the fact that this plane is federal property, is this plane lost, misplaced, or abandoned? Abandonment is defined as the act of intentionally and permanently giving up, surrendering, deserting or relinquishing property, premises, a right of way, a ship, contract rights, a spouse and/or children. Abandoned property is property left behind intentionally and permanently when it appears that the former owner does not intend to come back, pick it up, or use it. Putting aside the fact that this plane is federal property, it is abandoned. The Navy never attempted to locate the plane, which gives Mr. Champlin the right to acquire title to it. The title should have been good against the whole world, including the original owner. With this in mind, confusion arises over abandonment of water rights since mere non-use is not sufficient to show abandonment. One of the missions of the federal government is to provide for the national defense. In order to carry out this mission in the best possible way, and ensure our country's survival, subjecting the federal government’s property to the same laws, rules, and regulations regarding the defense of our country, would not be perspicacious. Faced with the threat of terrorism, today, more than ever, terrorists may gain highly sensitive or confidential information from federal property that should remain secret. 3. Should the federal government have special rules, or should federal property be subject to the same laws/rules/regulations as private property? Why or why not? Most property belonging to the Federal Government and the Department of Defense may have an adverse impact on our country’s national security should another person, group or party gain illegal or unauthorized access to it. If the plane carried sensitive material or information, then it should be back in the hands of the United States government. Military equipment is often specialized, containing some type of top-secret equipment and/or information that should not be in just any individual’s hands and requires specific protocols for release. The night sight currently used by the Army is an example of such equipment. Nonmilitary contractors assemble the night sight but it is also equipped with equipment considered confidential. The contractors who perform work on this equipment for the federal government are under contract not to give out any information for the protection of the top-secret equipment and in the interest of national security. In today’s computer age, you can go to a website to find out information on military equipment and weaponry. When accessing the sites you will see that you cannot get detailed information on some types of equipment such as the Navy site, NAVAIR Navy Weapons Division. This site contains weapons currently used by the Navy and the functions of said weapons. 4. Do you think that Mr. Champlin should have consulted with the Navy before spending his time and money on this project? Should he (or the general public for that matter) have known about this special rule regarding federal property? Consider whether there should be a time limit or statute of limitations regarding the forfeiture or non-forfeiture of title. Also, consider whether property should be considered lost or abandoned by the failure to protect or attempt recovery of the property. Mr. Champlin should have consulted with the Navy or spent time doing research on whether or not he could legally own the aircraft in question. In consulting with the Navy, he would have discovered that they might have wanted to recover the aircraft to put it in their museum. He also would have known the laws regarding lost or abandoned property. This property was lost and not abandoned based on the legal definition of lost property. 5. Aside from the property question regarding ownership, is Mr. Champlin entitled to any reimbursement for money spent? Is the Navy being unjustly enriched if he gets nothing? Are there any other theories that the class can come up with to secure repayment on his behalf? Legally he may not be entitled to get any money because he did not have prior permission from the Navy to search and recover governmental property (since only Congress can decide to abandon). Personally, the government should reward him (more then just expenses) for recovering such an uncommon aircraft. Champlain originally paid “a treasure hunter $75,000 for the location and a videotape of the submerged Douglas TBD-1 Devastator” (CNN, 1999) He won the case the first time but it was appealed by the Navy. He also won hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's and finder's fees. (CNN, 1999) One theory to secure repayment on his behalf would be to allow replica rights for collectors, proceeds from museum ticket sales and other events that draw spectators. 6. Consider what this rule might mean to businesses, particularly those that contract with the government. Consider, for example, a store or outlet that purchases federal/...