dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Appellant is not the true owner of the $20,000 in cash (Cash) and that the Cash should escheat to the State Treasurer because Officer Richards cannot recover the Cash when he found it in the course of his employment as a police officer.
The majority dismisses Appellant’s claim to the Cash because the trial court found Appellant’s testimony not credible and notes, “the somewhat unusual financial practices and elaborate explanations of Appellant’s account amply support the trial court’s determination that Appellant has no interest in the cash.” Majority opinion at 993. I disagree.
In effect, the majority agreed with the trial court that Officer Richards was the finder of the Cash but disagreed with the trial court’s determination that he could keep the Cash. Under the law of lost property in Pennsylvania, a finder of lost property has a valid claim against all except the true owner. Hamaker v. Blanchard, 90 Pa. 377, 379 (1879). Pennsylvania trial courts have held that the finder must exercise good faith and diligence in attempting to find the true owner of the property. See Carr v. Summers, 59 Pa.D. & C. 6 (Philadelphia County 1947); Walker v. West Hills Police Department, 13 D. & C.3d 456 (Cambria County 1980).
Here, the trial court determined that Officer Richards and Chief Imler acted with good faith and diligence in their attempts to find the true owner. Chief Imler arranged with the Somerset County 9-1-1 coordinator to provide him with reports concerning lost or stolen money, he periodically checked the lost and found classified advertisements in two area newspapers and checked with two neighboring police chiefs to see if anyone in their communities lost the Cash. The trial court made this determination even though it found that Officer Richards and Chief Imler, who served as custodian of the Cash, made no attempt to contact Appellant until an article appeared in the newspaper linking Appellant to the Cash. Chief Imler made no attempt to contact Appellant when he knew of the police stop that Officer Richards found the Cash approximately six feet from Appellant’s pickup, and had Appellant’s address in Florida. The trial court excused Chief Imler from conducting a more complete investigation because Appellant allegedly told Officer Richards and Officer McKnight that he did not throw anything from his truck. “An abuse of discretion exists where the judgment exercised by the lower court is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Masthope Rapids Property Owners Council v. Ury, 687 A.2d 70, 71 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). Here, the trial court’s determination that Officer Richards and Chief Imler acted with good faith and diligence to find the true owner was manifestly unreasonable. The majority does not address the lack of diligence by Officer Richards and Chief Imler to determine the true owner.
I believe the trial court had no option but' to conclude that Appellant threw the Cash from the track. Undeniably, Appellant’s conduct left much to be desired, but the evidence is overwhelming that Appellant possessed the Cash and it is inconceivable that anyone but Appellant discarded the Cash found outside his truck, absent any showing of leprechaun activity in the vicinity. Appellant testified that he obtained the Cash from Mr. Nemeth1 earlier that day. He also testified that he was drinking and that he threw beer cans and, by accident, the bag containing the Cash from his track while Officer Richards sat in the police car. Appellant described the contents of the bag and the bag itself.2 While Appellant might have told the officers that he did not throw anything from of his truck, he explained he did so because he did not want to be arrested for driving under the influence.
The trial court reasoned that Appellant’s lack of diligence to recover the Cash meant *997that Appellant was not the “true owner . Appellant disputed the trial court’s evaluation of his efforts and argued that the owner of lost property does not have to diligently search to recover the lost property to maintain his status as the owner. In order for an owner of property to relinquish his ownership interest in that property he must abandon it. Abandoned property is defined as property:
[T]o which an owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting it in any other person and with the intention of not reclaiming further possession or resuming ownership, possession or enjoyment.
Commonwealth v. Wetmore, 301 Pa.Super. 370, 447 A.2d 1012, 1014 (1982), quoting 1 AM. JUR. 2D Abandoned, Lost, and Unclaimed Property § 1. To constitute abandonment there must be an intention to abandon combined with “external acts” which carry out that intention. Quarry Office Park Assocs. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 394 Pa.Super. 426, 576 A.2d 358, 363 (1990).
Here, the trial court determined that the cash was not abandoned. I agree. Because it is beyond conjecture that Appellant never intended to abandon the Cash, and because Officer Richards and Chief Imler did not exercise reasonable diligence in their attempts to find the true owner, I disagree with the majority that the Cash should es-cheat to the State Treasurer. Instead, I would order that the Cash be returned to Appellant less the costs and expenses of Conemaugh Township in presenting the petition for declaratory judgment.
Judges FRIEDMAN and FLAHERTY join in this dissent.
. Whether Mr. Nemeth is the rightful owner of the Cash is not before this Court.
. Although the trial court conducted a review of the bag and its contents, the trial court made no findings as to the size, shape or color of the bag. As a result, We cannot with certainty determine the accuracy of Appellant's description. Appellant was the only person, including the trial court, to describe how the Cash was packed.