Taking good balls from range buckets

[Hardspoon]

I just found this legal precedent that says otherwise:

https://www.ngcoa.ca/Userfiles/File/GBC/1997/Fall/Legal%20Fall-97.pdf

This is particularly interesting since it occurred during a clear case of trespassing...seems crazy to me.

[Ernest Jones]

You mean the abandoned ball that has no owner?  Talk about a strawman, buddy.

I'll confess that I haven't read all your past posts in this thread, so it's entirely possible that I misunderstood your position. Just for clarity, is the "abandoned ball that has no owner" sitting in the bucket of range balls you just got from the machine/range dude?

[pumaAttack]

The precedent he linked is from Canada and involves kids taking balls out of a course pond, not cherry picking them out of buckets that are rented on the range.  Apple to oranges, but a nice try.

Ha apples and oranges? not at all.

It says the judge said the abandoned balls are not the property of the course owner.  So why would they belong to the range owner now?

[tefunk]

Ha, prove to me that the driving range isn't stealing the ball first. So when the range collects the ball and places it into their range bin, the property owner has to pay to get that ball back.  You know, a definition of theft by the State of Colorado.

1 - quote the entire statute, you missed a bit of it. 2 - you're trying to turn the argument around, because you can't win it otherwise. You still have not proven the range didn't own the ball. 3 - you're missing a few other statutes that would also be applicable. It's great that you know how to use Google, but that clearly isn't helping you establish that taking a range ball without permission, from it's owner, is not theft. You haven't proven anything yet

[pumaAttack]

1 - quote the entire statute, you missed a bit of it.

2 - you're trying to turn the argument around, because you can't win it otherwise. You still have not proven the range didn't own the ball.

3 - you're missing a few other statutes the would also be applicable.

It's great that you know how to use Google, but that clearly isn't helping you establish that taking a range ball without permission, from it's owner, is not theft.

You haven't proven anything yet

Read the other legal precedent I posted.

You know, where the judge says the course owner is not the proper owner of the abandoned ball...

[RFKFREAK]

This is particularly interesting since it occurred during a clear case of trespassing...seems crazy to me.

Yeah, interesting that the kid wasn't charged with trespassing

[Hardspoon]

It says the judge said the abandoned balls are not the owner of the course owner.  So why would they belong to the range owner now?

I guess you could argue that the difference between a golf course and a range would be that the golf course NEVER purchases golf balls and scatters them on the course, so if there is a ball there, you know with 100% certainty that it was abandoned by someone else.

With the range, there is always the potential (however unlikely) that the owner did "sprinkle" some ProV1's in there...so when you take it, you can't know for sure it wasn't owned.

Here's a fun wrinkle: there is a (crappy) range I go to that uses ONLY abandoned balls.  Not a single one is marked in any way.  If I lived in Canada, apparently I could just walk out with them by the bucketload.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumaAttack

Ha apples and oranges? not at all.

It says the judge said the abandoned balls are not the property of the course owner.  So why would they belong to the range owner now?

Quote:

What Is Abandoned Property?

As a general matter, if a property owner intentionally abandons property, they lose ownership of it. When property is intentionally abandoned, it belongs to nobody until it is found. At that point, title (ownership) transfers to whoever finds it, and takes it with intent to take ownership. This is the general rule created by the common law. Property is abandoned when the owner deliberately leaves it somewhere with the intent to completely give up ownership. This means that, as a general rule, it belongs to nobody, and can be claimed by the first person to find and take possession of it. Many states have made some significant modifications to the rule. For example, in many states, under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, previous owners may reclaim abandoned property within a certain period of time after abandonment. During this time period, the abandoned property essentially belongs to the state. While the person who finds the property may have the first right to it after the time period expires, and has a superior right of possession against everyone except the original owner, the original owner has a right to reclaim it any time before then. - See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/abandoned-personal-property.html#sthash.hQpjln5r.dpuf

When a range owner picks up and cleans the lost balls they have "found" the property.  Only the original owner has any rights to the property after it's abandoned and found.  Therefore if you find your golf ball in the bucket, you can claim ownership, otherwise it's theft.

[Ernest Jones]

If nothing else, please just don't take what two random people say on a forum.  They do not automatically know everything because they say so. It it is in your best interest to actual research a topic yourself.

In general I agree with that. But it's a question of degrees and prioritizing your life. I'm not going by get good value for my time if I choose to read the link, look for case law that counters it and prepare for the cycle of rebuttals and appeals. If you're right, you're right! It still wouldn't feel right to me, it's just not mine, regardless of its legal ambiguity. Still think you're likely wrong, but again, still haven't read the link.

[RFKFREAK]

In general I agree with that. But it's a question of degrees and prioritizing your life. I'm not going by get good value for my time if I choose to read the link, look for case law that counters it and prepare for the cycle of rebuttals and appeals. If you're right, you're right! It still wouldn't feel right to me, it's just not mine, regardless of its legal ambiguity. Still think you're likely wrong, but again, still haven't read the link.

Twitter is right up your alley. ;)

[tefunk]

Read the other legal precedent I posted.   You know, where the judge says the course owner is not the proper owner of the abandoned ball...

The facts are not the same: 1 - that is in Canada. Holds no weight in the US 2 - the circumstances are different. We are taking about taking a ball out of a range basket... They were taking balls from a pond, which the course had not yet retrieved. Still... you have not proven anything

[pumaAttack]

The facts are not the same:

1 - that is in Canada. Holds no weight in the US

2 - the circumstances are different. We are taking about taking a ball out of a range basket... They were taking balls from a pond, which the course had not retrieved the balls from.

Still, you have not proven anything

Who said it had to be in the US??  Only their laws apply to the rest of the world?

Not really any different at all.  The course owner never saw or touched either ball.  And has no claim to the ownership of said ball.

[Ernest Jones]

I guess you could argue that the difference between a golf course and a range would be that the golf course NEVER purchases golf balls and scatters them on the course, so if there is a ball there, you know with 100% certainty that it was abandoned by someone else. With the range, there is always the potential (however unlikely) that the owner did "sprinkle" some ProV1's in there...so when you take it, you can't know [U]for sure[/U] it wasn't owned. Here's a fun wrinkle: there is a (crappy) range I go to that uses ONLY abandoned balls.  Not a single one is marked in any way.  If I lived in Canada, apparently I could just walk out with them by the bucketload.

Nah, that's all irrelevant, I believe. I think the difference is the range has gathered and processed the balls and redistributed them commercially. They are not just sitting at the bottom of a pond or deep in the woods waiting to be stumbled on. And even all that is probably irrelevant as you have yet to demonstrate that the balls are not in fact the property of the range in the first place.

[tefunk]

Who said it had to be in the US??  Only their laws apply to the rest of the world? Not really any different at all.  The course owner never saw or touched either ball.  And has no claim to the ownership of said ball.

I said find the definition in any "state". Canada does not have any states... You do know that, right? And no, that facts are not the same. And, you're still missing some other key statutes which would be applicable (which REFREAK even pointed out for you). No matter how much you try to skirt the facts, change the argument, etc.... You are just wrong. And you can't prove it otherwise.

[iacas]

@pumaAttack , multi quote AND read the posts before responding. Just like the other thread. Please stop this pattern of just repeating the same things over and over and ignoring the content of the responses. Lawyers have spoken, so if you haven't seen the posts it's because you're not reading them.

[pumaAttack]

@pumaAttack, multi quote AND read the posts before responding. Just like the other thread. Please stop this pattern of just repeating the same things over and over and ignoring the content of the responses.

Lawyers have spoken, so if you haven't seen the posts it's because you're not reading them.

@iacas

Did you even read my posts?    I have posted legal precedents that proof my case and respond directly to questions asked to me.   What is the problem with that?

Lawyers have spoken?  Just because somebody claims to be a lawyer that does not mean I have to take everything they say as the 100% truth.

I am honestly confused as to how you think a message board works...  Do you just want people to agree with the first opinion and close a thread?

[pumaAttack]

I said find the definition in any "state". Canada does not have any states... You do know that, right?

And no, that facts are not the same. And, you're still missing some other key statutes which would be applicable (which REFREAK even pointed out for you).

No matter how much you try to skirt the facts, change the argument, etc.... You are just wrong. And you can't prove it otherwise.

Canada doesn't have states?  Wow, ground breaking revelation for me.

You are wrong and I have the legal precedent to back it up.  You still have shown me nothing at all.  You just keep saying the same thing over and over with no actual content to your posts.    If you had any proof you should have posted it by now, instead of your cryptic messages...

[iacas]

Their word carries more weight than yours on legal topics. I've read everything you've said here. You cited one thing so far. You've ignored many things. I'm not getting into a debate on this with you. Same old stuff. Repeating the same thing over and over is not discussion. It has nothing to do with agreement. I asked you to multi quote after a moderator did and you still didn't. Edit: Looks like a mod restricted you while I was responding. Okay then.