Last month, Los Angeles Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani hit his 50th season home run, becoming the first player to hit 50 home runs and steal 50 bases in a single season. The ball flew into the stands, a ruckus emerged trying to grab it, and Chris Belanski emerged holding the legendary ball. It has since sold at auction for an eye-watering $4.39 million, but Belanski can't retire peacefully yet.
Since the catch, there have been two lawsuits quickly filed by nearby persons claiming they caught the ball first and that $4.4 million really belongs to them. The first was case number 2024-018488-CA-01 by Max Matus, a fellow fan celebrating his 18th birthday at the game. His complaint says he really picked the ball up first but Mr. Belanski grabbed his arm and pried the ball away. The Plaintiff cites a bystander's video which shows a struggle, but sadly not the actual grabbing of the ball. Did Mr. Belanski wrap himself around this poor teen's hand and steal the ball or did he actually grab the ball first and just defend it from Max's attempt to steal it from him?
The second lawsuit, filed two days later as case number 2024-018734-CA-01, is by a Joseph Davidov. His complaint recount a similar tale of misfortune: he really grabbed the ball first before a stranger knocked it out of his hand, it rolled away, and Belanski picked it up. He cites another video which doesn't seem to be public, but it doesn't seem obvious to me to show any grabbing still.
These cases naturally draw parallels to the most famous home run ball dispute—Popov v. Hayashi. There, Barry Bonds hit his 73rd home run, Popov stopped it with his glove but got swarmed before he could grasp it, and Hayashi innocently picked it up off of the ground. The law usually is that the first person to possess unowned property becomes its owner, regardless of what happens after. Once you own the ball, someone knocking it out of your hand doesn't make it fair game again, just like your phone wouldn't be finders-keepers if someone knocked it to the ground. The twist in Popov was that Mr. Popov stopped the ball and presumably would have completed the catch if no one tackled him. The San Fransisco Superior Court therefore saw fit to honor this pre-possessory interest and force the proceeds to split between the parties.
Many may be wondering if that could happen here. If there's an argument, just split the proceeds to settle it, and everyone walks away a happy millionaire right? However, this appears legally baseless based on the different facts. No one is claiming to have a pre-possessory interest—to have done significant but incomplete steps to obtain possession of it. They're saying they grabbed it first. If the judge/jury find they're lying about that or that someone else grabbed it first, its hard to imagine where any rights to the ball could come from. And if, say, Davidov is telling the truth, I would think it should be his ball, end of story.
I am not licensed in Florida to know if it has special oddity in this area, but in general, this seems very straightforward legally. Each's case revolves entirely around the facts. Luckily, there were hundreds of cameras trained on the ball and therefore there will be plenty of evidence. However, the struggles took place behind a fence and under a table, so who can say how good a view any of those will end up with? With so much at stake, it's likely these cases will be fought to the end and there will be only one winner besides the lawyers. Who that is sounds like a question of fact that a jury will decide.
The above is my understanding of the law. I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. This post does not constitute legal advice. I make no warranty as to its accuracy or applicability to you. If you need a lawyer, get a lawyer. If you want me specifically, hire me.