Sharpe v. Turley
191 S.W.3d 362 · 2006
Facts
Francis Sharpe removed documents, including financial information, from a trash dumpster maintained by the Roman Catholic Diocese. He then contacted attorney Windle Turley, who was representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Diocese, and offered these documents. Turley subsequently subpoenaed and received the items from Sharpe. After Turley's case concluded, he did not want the items, and both Sharpe and the Diocese claimed rightful ownership. Turley turned the items over to the Diocese's attorney to hold until a court could determine ownership.
Issue
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Sharpe's fraud claim based on the "unlawful acts rule," specifically by finding that Sharpe's initial act of taking items from the Diocese's dumpster was unlawful and thus barred his claim?
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that Sharpe's fraud claim was barred by the unlawful acts rule because his conduct in removing the Diocese's items from its property without permission was unlawful and formed the foundation of his claim.
Rule
Under the unlawful acts rule, a plaintiff cannot recover for a claimed injury if, at the time of the injury, they were engaged in an illegal act. This rule applies when the illegal act is inextricably intertwined with the claim, and the alleged damages would not have occurred but for the illegal act. A property owner's rights are superior to those of a subsequent possessor who has stolen the property. Property is considered abandoned only if the owner intended to leave it free to be appropriated by any other person, which was not the case here as the Diocese contracted for waste disposal and intended to maintain control.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.