no.


.............................

I'm interested in any/everyone's input here.

Three college students are living together in a house; Will, Pat, and Bob. Their lease was for an entire year, so, after graduation, They stay for the summer. At the beginning of the summer, Pat gets married. Will gives Pat a dining room set as a gift.

The end of the summer, and the lease, comes up. Two weeks before the end of the lease, Will moves out. One week before the end of the lease, Pat moves out. Bob is left with the responsibility of moving his stuff out and ensuring that the house is in decent condition on the last day of the lease.

Bob gets an apartment and moves all his stuff out. When Pat moved out, he left the dining room set behind. Rather than leave it at the curb, Bob moves it into his apartment, assuming that Pat didn't want it.

Several months later, Will visits his old roommate, Bob, at his new apartment. Will sees the dining room set and becomes upset and takes the dining room set back.

Thoughts? Input?

Will should not be upset with Bob. Bob should not have a problem with letting the set go. Will can settle the matter with Pat.

If not for Bob, the set would have been trash. Bob saved it. Isn't Bob the owner now?

(I can and will argue the position of all parties involved.)

I think after it's been abandoned for 30 days, Bob can claim he legally owns it.

Does Bob want the set badly enough to put up with all the ensuing BS from Will and/or Pat?

Great point. And it's basically the reason that Bob gives for not making a big stink out of the whole thing.

Yes, legally he had the right to it. But there would have been social ramifications for that legal right.

At some point, depending on how many other people reply and get involved here, if any, I'll let you know who I was in the scenario.

If no prior arrangements were made he forfeited his rights to the table when he left.

What about Will?

He would not have given the gift if he knew it would have been abandoned in such a manner. Shouldn't he be able to get it back? Pat should have told him he didn't want it or didn't plan on taking it with him. Had that been the case, Will would have taken it.

I predict Pat.

One out of three are fairly easy odds.

But that's not an admission or denial at this point.

If Will gave it to Pat, he forfeited any rights to it. If Pat left it when he moved out and never gave any indication that he would return for it, he forfeited his rights to it as well. It belongs to Bob by virtue of being the last man standing.

And were I Bob, I would tell Will that he was ridiculous for thinking he could 'take back" something that was not his.

Don't be so Coupe de Ville, Pat.

Were you the " dining room set"? Maybe you guys were all fans of Soylent Green and picked up the furniture idea.


My thoughts? That dining room set was abandoned. But yeah, I'd probably relinquish my claim on it too, if it was going to cause undue strife.

I pretty much agree with this stance.

However, I feel we are missing some vital information. Why did Will "take back" the dining room set? Did he take it to get it delivered to Pat, or did he take it for himself? If Will took it for himself, then he is the bad guy in this. My guess is that his feelings are hurt that this big gift was so thoughtlessly disregarded. However, even if his feelings are hurt, that doesn't give him the right to try to reclaim it.

This is a hard lesson to learn, but once you give a gift to someone, it no longer belongs to you. If you give a guitar to someone, and they decide to use it as a tennis racket and nightstand, that's their choice, there's nothing you can do about it. So once Will gave the dining room set as a gift, it was no longer his - he has no say in how it is used or what is done with it.

Back to lack of information. Was there ever any communication from Pat regarding the dining room set? Did he say that he wanted it but couldn't get it to his new place? Did he say he didn't need it or didn't want it? Did he just not say anything?

More lack of information. Did Bob ever contact Pat to clarify the status of the dining room set? If not, he definitely should have. If he did, what was the result of the conversation?

I think Will, Pat and Bob need to communicate better, and stop being so passive-aggressive.

How does one just leave behind furniture, and then expect to claim it later?

Pat ought to not have left it with no clear direction.

Bob ought to have called Pat and said "hey, if you don't take this, I'm keeping it."

I don't think I like Pat or Bob much at all, and would be happy not to have them for roommates anymore. And if I were Will, I'd be pissed that Pat ditched my gift without a word, but I wouldn't expect to have any claim to it. I'd call Pat and give him an earful.