Content area
Full Text
I
INTRODUCTION
Two concepts of law and their overlap are treated here: the laws of salvage and finds. When courts adjudicate the overlap of these two concepts and determine rights held in shipwrecks, the policies behind and definition of the latter come into conflict with the policies behind and definition of the former, creating a conceptual conflict that federal courts failed to identify until only very recently.
Until 2006, courts had sub silentio permitted an overlap of the laws of salvage and finds when adjudicating the rights to shipwrecks without recognizing the conundrum. Judge Niemeyer's opinion in RMJS. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, 435 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2006) (hereinafter referred to as the "2006 Titanic Opinion"), confronted the question. Addressing the issue head on, the court chose to impose a rule that makes remedies under the laws of salvage and finds mutually exclusive. In this article, it is argued that there is justification for permitting the conceptual conflict to stand, and that mutual exclusivity is a less desirable result.
II
The Existing Legal Regime
A. The Laws of Salvage and Finds
It is first necessary to very basically explain the competing laws of salvage and finds. The law of salvage is distinctly maritime,1 and thus jurisdictionally federal.2 It is used to encourage the rescue of property in marine peril by awarding those undertaking rescue operations monetarily or in specie according to several factors.3 The doctrine is also used to grant exclusive salvage rights to a potential salvor who has (1) constructive possession over property in peril and (2) the present intention and capability to successfully perform the salvage operation.4 These rights permit a salvor to conduct salvage operations unfettered by rival salvors.'
The law of finds dates far back into the common law of property.6 The doctrine grants title to unowned property according to principle of "finderskeepers;" actual possession of property creates an interest in that property that can ripen into clear title if no better possessory interest is interposed.7 Thus, to acquire title to property in this fashion, a finder would have to prove the property was either (1) never owned or (2) once owned but since abandoned.8 Since shipwrecks were obviously once owned, it is the second option that...