Bank Error in Your Favor, Collect $120,000?

In 2019, a couple in Pennsylvania discovered that their bank accidentally deposited $120,000 into their account. A BB&T Bank teller entered the wrong account number when a customer in Georgia made the deposit. When the customer contacted the bank to ask about the missing deposit, the money was found to have gone into the Williamses’ joint account. Upon discovery of their sudden windfall, the couple proceeded to spend the surprise money on an SUV, a camper, two four wheelers and a car trailer, instead of contacting the bank to ask about the situation.

The bank tried contacting the Williamses several times with no answer. Both Tiffany and Robert Williams admitted they knew the money didn’t belong to them. The Williams were charged criminally, but tried to claim “finders keepers” in regard to the surprisingly deposited money. The bank claimed that since they tried to contact the Williams and the couple knew the money didn’t belong to them, the bank was the rightful owner and entitled to the money.

This case requires a look at the distinction between lost property and mislaid property explained in McAvoy v. Medina. In that case, a barbershop client found a pocketbook with money on a counter in the shop. The client gave the pocketbook to the barber and asked him to find its owner. When the client never came forward, the client sued the barber to get the money and pocketbook back. The client argued that under Armory v. Delamirie, he was a finder of lost property and thus he had the right to possession of the pocketbook. However, while acknowledging the common-law rule that the finder of lost property has a right to keep it against all but the rightful owner, the court recognized a “distinction between the case of property…placed by the owner and neglected to be removed, and property lost.” The court held that the pocketbook was mislaid property, not lost property, and therefore neither the client nor the barber obtained rights to the pocketbook.

In the case of the Pennsylvania couple, the lost property doctrine is especially important. If a person discovers lost property, they have the right to possession of that property against all but the true owner. If a person discovers misplaced property, they have no rights to possession. Applying that reasoning here, the $120,000 deposited into the Williamses’ account is better characterized as mislaid (or more precisely, mistakenly transferred) rather than lost. The original depositor in Georgia did not “lose” the money in the sense of unintentionally dropping it. Instead, the funds were intentionally placed with the bank but directed to the wrong account due to a teller error. This aligns more closely with mislaid property, where the finder does not automatically gain superior rights. The Williamses’ “finders keepers” argument fails because that principle applies only to lost property, not to mislaid or mistakenly delivered property. Moreover, both Tiffany and Robert Williams admitted they knew the money did not belong to them, further undermining any claim to rightful possession.

As to ownership, the strongest argument is that the original depositor is the true owner because the funds were always intended for their account or a specific recipient, and the bank merely acted as an intermediary that made the error. The bank, however, may assert a possessory interest as a bailee responsible for correcting the mistake and returning the funds. Ultimately, under the logic of McAvoy, the money must be returned to its rightful owner, and the Williamses have no valid claim to keep it.

From a policy perspective, this situation highlights the balance between individual reliance and maintaining trust in financial systems. While people should not be expected to question every unexpected benefit, knowingly spending money that is clearly not theirs shifts the issue from innocent receipt to opportunistic conduct. Private law can require repayment, but relying only on that remedy may risk encouraging exploitation for obvious mistakes. At the same time, the state should be careful not to criminally punish those who act in good faith. A sensible approach is to reserve stronger consequences for cases involving clear knowledge and intentional misuse, reinforcing the social norm that one cannot knowingly benefit from another’s error.

Katie DeGregory is a student interested in Criminal Defense Law at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: Flying Logos, Over $1,000,000 dollars in USD $100 bill stacks.