Probably the most researched and litigated decisions in civil law have dealt with who owns what and for how long for stuff at the bottom of the wet stuff.
Generations of maritime lawyers have and will continue to afford to buy expensive boats that float on top of the water by working cases of boats no longer floating.
The more familiar but more misunderstood term "Derelict" and the less known but critically important term "Lagan" are both legal terms that help decide who owns what and for how long.
What are the exact legal definitions of Derelict and Lagan? Well that's why maritime lawyers get rich.
Derelict are wrecks/cargo that the owner has claimed is irrecoverable and therefore, they give up any ownership rights and at the same time, avoid responsibility for recovery.
Lagan are wrecks/cargo that the owner has claimed is recoverable and therefor keep ownership rights but also assume the responsibility for recovery.
So depending on the value of the wreck/cargo, it may be in the owner's best interest to claim that the wreck is Lagan.
Although rare, if a sunken boat causes damage to something else (perhaps sunk in shallow waters), whether it is Derelict or Lagan is most important.
Let's not even get into what happens when something Derelict or Lagan becomes some Flotsam or Jetsam. That's when the lawyers start buying private jets.
What the owners really want is to keep their positive claims and avoid their negative responsibilities. They want to claim ownership, if found, but avoid responsibility if it is not. Fortunately, the law does not allow this.
Unfortunately, this means that many owners simply do not make any claims until the wreck is found.
The problem is that unless the owner is getting money from Insurance, often these wrecks and associated components/cargo are simply left undefined. This makes finding and salvaging more problematic.
Insurance companies also play fast and loose with maritime law (say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so!).
This is so problematic that some countries have established a "Receiver of Wreck" which is a government office that takes immediate legal custody (but not ownership) of any wreck and or associated cargo found in their jurisdiction. This Receiver of Wrecks then conducts a lengthy investigation on the who, when, how long, and the whats concerning ownership.
Generally speaking if the wreck/cargo is still owned, the finder can charge a "reasonable" (aka lawyers get very rich) recovery and salvage fee from the owner and the owner keeps the junk and then is responsible for disposing of it. If the wreck/cargo is not owned, then the finder is not eligible for any salvage fee but is, instead stuck with the junk to get rid of.
So if the wreck/cargo is not particularly valuable, the owner really does not want it found as they can end up losing a lot of money in the process. The insurance companies sure don't want anything found for the same reason.
The only people who are happy with this are the maritime lawyers.
Contrary to popular belief, it is in the best interest of the finders to find something that is already owned as they can more easily get an unreasonable (aka lawyers get very rich) salvage fee. With few exceptions, the stuff found in wrecks has limited commercial value. Unfortunately, historical, sentimental, and emotional value does not factor into the financial reimbursement.
Now if the wreck/cargo has a high commercial value, naturally everyone changes their opinion and the ownership right fights start (aka lawyers get very rich).
More than anyone wanted to know about this, I am sure.
