Is “the son” a friend of one of the store employees?
^^
absolutely! an inside job
^^
Sounds like an inside job to me. Would never think to keep money in a toaster oven.
My mother likes to hide her jewelry around the house (like little tea tin cans), except she often forgets where she put them. Some day when she passes away, we will need to be very careful to check out every box in the house before we throw them away.
As an aside…what is going on in that home where the wife keeps $$$$$ in a toaster oven, and the H thinks it’s ok to return it without the wife’s knowledge? How weird is that.
Target was wrong not to ask for ID. I was in another big chain store and someone came in to claim a wallet “for my cousin,” and when asked to show ID, the person had a crazy story, so the wallet was not turned over.
Other people have much more interesting things in their kitchen appliances, than I have.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25850.html
I’m assuming the toaster oven was a recent purchase if the husband was returning it? I find it odd that she would so quickly hide their life’s savings in there .
At least there is a chance the money will be recovered with this scenario, whereas if he had decided to preheat the toaster oven . . .
Hopefully this person will be caught and the “aiding” employee will be fired. I wonder what crime they can be charged with? Is there a law on the books that this would fall under?
Target may just pay the people so that they can avoid any more bad press.
How do they release cash to someone without even asking for an ID?
Something isn’t right with this story.
Something doesn’t add up in this story.
ok…another media source tells a bit more…
the family lived in Mich and bought this oven, they tried it, it sparked, and they put it back in the box with the intention of returning it later. They soon moved to NY. It sounds like before they moved, the wife put the money in there as sort of a “bank”…lol. When they got to NY, the H returned it to Target. Afterwards, the wife found out…
“Is there a law on the books that this would fall under?”
I will let our legal experts comment on how lost vs mislaid vs abandoned property is treated by law… 
Finders are not always keepers.
The wife opened a box with a toaster oven they were planning to return…and put that much money in it? That makes even less sense!
This is one of the most bizarre stories I’ve ever read.
But I’m less likely to believe stories with clickbait headlines anyway so…
LOL - Reminded me of the story (only sort of true) of Molly Brown burning money hid in the stove - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058708/trivia
lol… ^^ That’s what I thought of as well!
Unsinkable Molly Brown!
Yep, definitely sounds fishy.
I know nothing about the legal ramifications, but I have taken enough law school exams to allow me to come up with a bs legal analysis. So here’s my totally-off-the-cuff-with-nothing-behind-it legal “analysis”:
If the facts have been reported accurately:
–the person claiming the money is guilty of theft. It shouldn’t matter that the husband and wife were idiots; the store found the money and agreed to hold it for the couple. Even if there were some competing claims of ownership between the store and the couple, the person claiming the money under false pretenses clearly stole it.
– the more difficult question is what recourse the couple would have against the store. Before the store found the money and had agreed to hold it, the couple almost certainly would have no claim against the store at all. However, upon agreeing to hold the money, the store arguably entered into a voluntary bailment situation and had a duty to use due care in holding the money. Giving the money to a random stranger could possibly be a violation of the duty of due care. Would need research into whether a bailment relationship would be created and would need more facts about the store’s actions. The key here is that the store agreed to hold the money.
– it is not at all clear to me whether the person who originally found the money could just keep it or had some affirmative duty to turn it over. This would likely vary by state. (To clarify: the person would have a moral duty to tirn in money; question is whether there is a corresponding legal duty).
– whatever the scheme is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the couple were in on it. Maybe the store employee and the couple are in cahoots? That would be a clear case of fraud!
Fish-issimo