By Daniela Frank-Fernandez ‘26
Every baseball fan’s dream is to catch a home run ball from the stands—to keep a small piece of the game they can hold on to forever. This can lead to altercations between fans wanting to make this dream a reality. When several fans claim to have caught the same home run ball, and video footage can’t prove or disprove their claims, the dispute can go from the stadium stands to a courtroom fairly quickly—especially when the ball in question is of significant historical and monetary value, like Shohei Ohtani’s 50/50 home run ball.
Los Angeles Dodger Shohei Ohtani became the first Major League Baseball player to hit 50 home runs and steal 50 bases in a single season. (1) But as soon as Ohtani hit his 50th home run in LoanDepot Park on September 19, 2024, and that ball landed on the stands, a legal dispute ensued over ownership of the coveted memorabilia after several fans claimed it. This dispute raises an intriguing legal question: who is a baseball's lawful owner once it leaves the field of play when several fans claim ownership? Several legal analyses and threshold determinations must be made to answer this question.
We first consider the legal principle of abandonment. In property law, abandonment occurs when the original owner intentionally relinquishes their rights to an item allowing someone else to become its owner. (2) Baseballs hit into the stands are generally considered abandoned by the team (through its batter), meaning the team no longer owns them once the balls leave the field of play (by hitting the ball out of the park), allowing a fan to become its owner. In the case of Ohtani’s baseball, there is no question that the ball was abandoned once it went into the stands.
The next determination is to establish who gained possession of the ball after it was abandoned. In cases when only one fan caught or otherwise possessed the ball, the analysis would end here. However, when multiple fans claim possession and ownership of the ball, as with the Ohtani baseball, the legal analysis must continue until a final resolution is reached—after a trial or via settlement between the people involved in the dispute.
In the case of Ohtani’s 50/50 home run ball, Christian Zacek and Max Matus, two fans in the left field seats, claim that they have rightful ownership over the baseball. (3) According to Matus, an 18-year-old fan, he was the first to grab the ball. However, according to Matus, Zacek also reached for the ball and only gained possession of it after trapping Matus’s arms between Zacek’s legs and securing the ball away from Matus. (4) Video footage taken by nearby fans seems to confirm Matus’s account.
The legal doctrine of "finders keepers" supports the conclusion that the fan who first finds an abandoned home run ball should be its rightful owner. Under this principle, Matus may be initially recognized as the rightful owner of the baseball because it appears that he was the first fan to find the ball—although, technically, the ball flew into the area where Matus was standing. However, the situation becomes complex when, almost immediately, Matus loses control of the ball, raising questions about whether his initial possession is sufficient to maintain his ownership claim.
At this point, two key legal concepts come into play: possession and conversion. Under the possession doctrine, the fan who actually secures and retains the ball typically has the strongest legal claim. (5) Utilizing this analysis, Matus seems to have a strong claim of ownership since he was the first fan to grab the ball—before Zacek seized the ball by wrestling it away from Matus. Zacek’s actions, in turn, bring the doctrine of conversion into play, referring to the wrongful taking or interference with someone’s personal property, thus giving Matus grounds to sue Zacek for conversion (i.e., the unauthorized possession of the baseball).
Complicating this legal landscape further, Zacek immediately expressed his intent to sell the 50/50 ball, which led to exigent litigation by Matus to try to prevent the sale. (6) Shortly after, a second fan, Joseph Davidov, added to the case's complexity by filing his own lawsuit claiming ownership of the 50/50 ball. (7) With everyone’s agreement, the ball was auctioned by Goldin Auctions for $4.392 million, while litigation continues to determine its ownership. (8)
Believe it or not, the case of the 50/50 ball is not the first time legal disputes have arisen surrounding the ownership of home run baseballs. The Barry Bonds case, specifically the disputes over his 73rd home run ball and his 700th home run ball, are widely considered legal precedent for the Shohei Ohtani case. The dispute over Bonds’s 73rd home run ball in 2001 addressed multiple legal principles including those of conversion, trespass to chattel, injunctive relief, and constructive trust. In this case, however, neither conversion nor trespass to chattel was found, due to the presence of external circumstances—“a gang of bandits” that attacked both parties in an attempt to seize the ball from them. (9) Even though this Barry Bonds case involved a similar situation as the 50/50 ball, it resulted in both fans possessing equal claim over the ball and eventually splitting the proceeds from the sale of the baseball due to the lack of legal precedent. (10) Then, in 2004, legal disputes arose again over Barry Bonds’ 700th home run ball, when Timothy Murphy sued Steve Williams claiming that Williams wrongfully stole the ball away from him after he had secured lawful possession and rightful ownership over the ball. (11) This case addressed principles of conversion, battery, and civil conspiracy, resulting in the ball being auctioned for $804,129. (12)
To conclude, the question of who truly owns a baseball once it flies into the stands remains complex and case-dependent. While property law principles like abandonment, possession, and conversion provide a framework, each situation introduces unique circumstances that complicate ownership claims. In the case of Ohtani’s 50/50 home run ball, Matus's initial possession might suggest rightful ownership, but Zacek’s interference and intent to sell raise questions that go beyond simple possession.
The Barry Bonds cases demonstrated that, depending on the crowd’s involvement or other external factors, a court may recognize joint ownership rather than a singular claim. In future cases, determining rightful ownership will continue to rely on interpreting these legal concepts within specific contexts, acknowledging that the “right answer” often varies depending on the details.
In the end, the question of who truly owns a ball hit into the stands remains unresolved, with each case offering fresh insights into the legal complexities involved. As historic plays and record-breaking moments continue to occur, the courts may further refine their approach to these cases, highlighting the adaptability and context-specific nature of property law.
Endnotes
Shintaro Kano, Shohei Ohtani 50-50 tracker: Going beyond MLB's first-ever 50-50 season, Olympics (September 29, 2024). https://olympics.com/en/news/baseball-shohei-ohtani-50-50-tracker.
Michael R. Gavin, Arrr... Whose Booty, Mates? Who Possesses Legal Title to a Home Run Baseball that Lands Outside a Stadium's Confines?, 27 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 471 (2017). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol27/iss2/10.
Sheldon Fox, Kathleen Ditton, and Chantal Cook, Broward teen sues over Shohei Ohtani's historic 50th home run ball, claims it was stolen at Marlins game, CNN Wire (September 27, 2024). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6D2D-P501-JBSS-S061-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=8XHCHK54812.
Ibid.
Michael R. Gavin, Arrr... Whose Booty, Mates? Who Possesses Legal Title to a Home Run Baseball that Lands Outside a Stadium's Confines?, 27 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 471 (2017). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol27/iss2/10.
Ibid.
Ling Hui, Second fan files lawsuit claiming ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50-50 baseball, Canoe.com (October 2, 2024). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6D3N-8CS1-F03F-K1CP-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=8XHCHK54812.
Tzvi Machlin, Shohei Ohtani's 50th Home Run Ball Sells For Record Amount, The Spun (October 23, 2024). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6D81-1HH1-F03F-K249-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=8XHCHK54812.
Alex Popov v. Patrick Hayashi, Case No. 400545, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Dept. 306 (Decision of Judge Kevin M. McCarthy, December 18, 2002).
Alex Lawson, A Piece Of Baseball Lore Went Over The Fence And Into Court, Law360 Legal News - Corporate (October 22, 2024). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6D8K-06S1-JBWC-W11M-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=8XHCHK54812.
Dispute over a Bonds home run arises again - ESPN. (2004, September 28). ESPN.com; ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=1890226.
Rubenstein, S. (2004, October 28). BAY AREA / Bonds’ 700th home run ball: It’s going, going, gone for $804,129. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/bay-area-bonds-700th-home-run-ball-it-s-2640152.php.
Commentaires