Brief Fact Summary. An amateur archeologist excavated American Indian artifacts from burial plots on land which he did not own. He attempted to sell the collection, but could not prove ownership of the artifacts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Objects found in burial plots are not abandoned property; instead, they belong to the descendants and cannot be acquired over the objection of the descendants.
Issue. When a person expends a large amount of time and money excavating buried cultural objects, do those objects belong to him?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed.
Even though the American Indian tribe claiming ownership of the objects cannot provide a perfect chain of title that traces their ancestors to those buried in the village, enough evidence exists to prove there is descent.
Even though the tribe moved from the location of the burial plots, they did not abandon the property. Objects that are buried are done so with the intention that they remain in the ground. Another person cannot claim ownership of those objects by simply excavating them.
For a claim of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must prove that he sustained an impoverishment. An impoverishment occurs when the plaintiff was not at fault or negligent or did not take the action at his own risk. Here, Charrier knew he was acting at his own risk or possibly out of negligence because he knew he did not have permission from the landowner.
The impoverishment element is met only when the factual circumstances show that the impoverishment was not a result of the plaintiffs own fault or negligence or was not undertaken at his own risk.View Full Point of Law