Who Owns the "Heart of the Ocean" from Titanic? The Answer May Shock You!

Pretty good click-bait title, right? Ok, but seriously. I was on a plane last week and Titanic was included on the in-flight entertainment. Since I was flying over the North Atlantic, I couldn't help myself from watching the best movie ever made about the North Atlantic. It reminded me of a question I have long thought about, but only now decided to (try to) actually answer:

Who owns the Heart of the Ocean diamond from James Cameron’s 1997 Academy Award-Winning film Titanic?

Before we can answer that important question, we need to establish a few facts. First, let's assume that everything in James Cameron’s 1997 film Titanic is real life and actually happened. Jack Dawson exists. That lake in Wisconsin where Jack used to go ice fishing did actually exist in 1912. And, despite her mantra suggesting otherwise, Rose did, in fact, “let go,” of both Jack and the Heart of the Ocean (Cameron’s alternate ending, preferred by some Titanic fans, will not be addressed in this article).

This article also assumes that the reader is familiar with the film Titanic and has, preferably, watched it several times. If you haven’t, immediately stop reading. Watch the film Titanic. When you’ve stopped crying (some 10-15 minutes after ending credits roll, see below), continue reading.

According to Titanic.fandom.com (which, for the purposes of this article, always provides authoritative, accurate, and court-admissible information), we know the following material facts about the Heart of the Ocean:

 

·      It is a 56-carat blue diamond once owned by Louis the XVI, but which disappeared mysteriously after his execution in 1793.

·      Shortly before the Titanic’s fateful voyage, it was legally purchased by Caledon Hockley, AKA Billy Zane, AKA Rose’s Evil Fiancée, AKA “that asshole.”

·      Hockley presents the diamond to Rose to try to make her feel better after throwing a toddler-like temper tantrum at breakfast. He gives it to her as a gift, ostensibly as an engagement gift and to gain her forgiveness, but probably also to remind Rose of Cal’s immense wealth and that he can provide so much for her financially if she submits to him.

·      Rose shows the diamond, which was in a safe in Cal’s closet, to Jack on the night of the sinking and Jack draws Rose “like one of [his] French girls,” while Rose wears the necklace (and only the necklace). 

·      After the nude modeling session, the drawing and necklace are returned to the safe.

·      Later, Jack and Rose are chased around the ship and eventually apprehended by one of Cal’s men. The necklace is then surreptitiously placed in Jack’s pocket in an attempt to frame him for theft of the necklace. Jack is taken away as a thief, and the necklace goes back in the safe.

·      Later, Cal empties the safe before evacuating the ship, and places the diamond in his coat pocket. Before cowardly jumping into a lifeboat himself, he gives Rose his coat with the diamond in the pocket.

·      Rose wears the coat with the necklace the entire time she is lounging on that incredibly roomy door.

·      Rose discovers the necklace after being rescued by the R.M.S. Carpathia. Eventually, she moves to Iowa to watch the news while making pottery.

·      After recounting the entire screen play of Titanic to Brock Lovett and his crew, at the very end of the film, the old lady reminisces while leaning over the railing of the research ship, looking down into the water over the Titanic wreck site, and it is revealed she still has the diamond in her possession.

·     The diamond drops into the ocean. The audience weeps uncontrollably. We realize that the diamond is just like Jack, disappearing into the depths, lost forever. We are struck by James Cameron's metaphorical comparison between the value of love and the value of material possessions. And, finally, our hearts go on (and on).

 

Since Rose’s intent regarding the drop is unclear and hotly debated, how would a United States court determine ownership if someone went down and got it?

 

LAYING DOWN THE LAW

 

Since the wreck of the R.M.S. Titanic was discovered in the mid-1980s, it has been the subject of complex and ongoing litigation that literally has not ceased in decades (although the most recent published opinion on the matter appears to be from 2021, R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-1684, 2021 WL 2627695 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2021)). From this salvage-related litigation we have a long line of opinions from both the federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals (SCOTUS has denied cert twice). Although these opinions do not address the fate of Rose’s fictious diamond necklace, they do explain some basic principles of admiralty law as applied to abandoned property recovered from the ocean floor, and are fascinating reads, too.

 

SALVAGE OR FINDS?

 

“The general maritime law of nations includes a law of finds and a law of salvage, and courts of admiralty apply one to the exclusion of the other, as appropriate, to resolve claims in property discovered and recovered in navigable waters by those other than the property's owners . . . Under the law of finds, a person who discovers a shipwreck in navigable waters that has been long lost and abandoned and who reduces the property to actual or constructive possession, becomes the property's owner.” R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999). However, “[b]ecause the law of finds deprives the true owner of a property right, the courts of admiralty disfavor its application and prefer to apply the law of salvage in its stead.” Id.

 

The crucial question becomes whether the Heart of the Ocean could be considered "salvaged" from a ship wreck. The essential distinction between the Heart of the Ocean and other Titanic items is that this diamond did not go down with the Titanic, so it could not be considered part of any salvage operation of the R.M.S. Titanic. Even independent from the R.M.S. Titanic’s wreck and salvage operation, the recovery of the Heart of the Ocean would probably not be considered a "salvage operation" under the common law of admiralty. Some kind of maritime disaster is almost always a required element of a salvage claim, and in the United States, a salvage claim is the only way for a possessor to settle title to movable property recovered from the ocean floor. “To establish a salvage claim for compensation and award, a person must demonstrate (1) that he has rendered aid to a distressed ship or its cargo in navigable waters; (2) that the service was voluntarily rendered without any preexisting obligation arising from contract or otherwise to the distressed ship or property; and (3) that the service was useful by effecting salvage of the ship or its cargo, in whole or in part.” Id. at 964 (emphasis added).

 

So, it would seem that anyone who found the Heart of the Ocean would likely have their title determined under finder’s law principles, rather than salvage. Absent an argument that there was some kind of “marine peril” when the old lady threw the diamond into the ocean, the requirement that a salvor “render[ed] aide to a distressed ship,” would sink any possibility of proceeding under salvage rules. See The Sabine, 101 U.S. 384 (1879) (requiring existence of a “marine peril” to proceed under salvage).

 IF SALVAGE LAW APPLIES

So this case is likely to be determined under finder’s law instead of salvage– which makes a big difference in the outcome of the case. The Titanic salvage cases cited supra and infra do an excellent job of explaining how maritime salvage of movable property generally works. Luckily, I read all of it, so you don’t have to. Regarding entire paragraph below, see R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 286 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2002); R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 435 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2006); R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943, 964 (4th Cir.1999).

 

Under salvage law, title in the property almost always remains with the person who lost the item at sea. When property is salvaged, the salvor has right of possession but not title. They are essentially trustees of the property, and admiralty law actually places an affirmative duty on salvors to maintain possession, preserve the property the best they can, and (most importantly) find the owner to try to return the property (and collect a generous reward). In exchange for their salvage service, a court will determine the appropriate reward for return of the salvaged property, using various factors laid out in a whole history of cases– but the reward is required to be quite generous, to encourage salvage as a matter of public policy. After a court determines the appropriate award, the true owner must pay that reward to regain possession. If they do not pay (or if they cannot be found) then the court has the authority to order sale of the property to pay the reward. If the property’s monetary value is less than the reward amount, then a court may exercise its discretion to award actual title to the property to the salvor, in lieu of a monetary reward. But courts strongly favor monetary rewards in salvage cases and only award title to salvors in exceptional circumstances. So if this case proceeded under salvage law, Rose’s descendants would have to pay a generous court-determined monetary reward to the salvors, but they could regain actual possession the Heart of the Ocean. 

IF FINDERS, KEEPERS (LOSERS, WEEPERS) APPLIES

 

As the 4^th Circuit explained in its third written opinion in the Titanic salvage litigation (2006), under the law of finds, AKA “finders, keepers,” the first person to “find” unowned property obtains title. “Traditionally, in admiralty, [finder’s law] was applied only to objects found in the state of nature, such as marine flora and fauna . . . More recently, the doctrine has been applied to long-lost and abandoned shipwrecks.” R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 435 F.3d 521, 532 (4th Cir. 2006). However, in admiralty law, there is a strong presumption that property lost at sea is not abandoned. The 4^th Circuit explained that there are “only two types of maritime cases in which the presumption against abandonment is overcome: first, those in which property owners expressly relinquish title; and second, those where “items are recovered from ancient shipwrecks and no owner appears in court to claim them.” Id.  

 

So, this presents a fascinating turn of events. One would think that the purported salvor (the person who went down and got the diamond) would prefer to use the law of finds. Under finder’s law, property is “abandoned” if its owner relinquishes actual possession and communicates, in some way, a clear intention to relinquish ownership (like, say, by intentionally dropping it into the ocean). Since abandoned property belongs to the finder, Rose’s decedents would be out of luck.

 

However, this is frustrated by the lack of evidence that Rose intentionally dropped the necklace into the ocean. She must have, by some act, expressed a clear intention to abandon that necklace. This is practically impossible, even if we admit the footage from the film into evidence, since viewers are often divided on whether or not the drop was intentional.

 

SO WHO OWNS THE HEART OF THE OCEAN?

 

Short answer: Rose, probably. Since there is a strong presumption against abandonment in this situation (plus other considerations, like the value of the necklace), it would be hard to prove Rose intended to abandon the necklace. That means Rose retained title all along. The Estate of Rose DeWitt Bukater could probably recover it through a simple replevin action, if they wanted.

 

But whom would they sue?

 

What a great question. I’m so glad you asked.

 

WHERE IS IT NOW?

 

In the music video for Britney Spears’ 2000 hit single Oops!... I Did It Again, which was nominated for three MTV Video Music Awards, there is a brief interlude in which Britney, who is performing her dance routine on the surface of Mars, meets with a hunky astronaut, presumably a romantic admirer (video automatically skips to around 2 minutes, 46 seconds in).

 The hunky astronaut presents the Heart of the Ocean to Spears, who is quite confused because, as far as she knew, "the old lady dropped it into the ocean in the end." But her Martian admirer explains that he "went down and got it for [her]." Spears responds by saying "awe, you shouldn't have" and takes actual possession of the diamond. In so doing, Spears accepted the gift and acquired title to the diamond. However, for the reasons explained above, Mr. Space Cadet may not have had any valid title to transfer to Spears.

The evidence suggests that right now Britney Spears is a good-faith possessor of the Heart of the Ocean. We all know that Britney Spears was under a guardianship for many years, but that was recently lifted, so the diamond is definitely hers, if she has it. She probably thinks she owns it, too. The only way to resolve this is for Rose’s estate or heirs to sue Britney Spears, in admiralty, for possession of the Heart of the Ocean. They could also probably recover it through a simple replevin action. And the only way Britney could stop it is if she convinces a federal judge that the old lady threw it into the ocean on purpose.

 

Steven Coburn