Cash found in Ohio house's walls becomes nightmare


Cash found in Ohio house's walls becomes nightmare
Sunday, November 9, 2008

CLEVELAND - A contractor who found $182,000 in Depression-era currency hidden in a bathroom wall has ended up with only a few thousand dollars, but he feels some vindication.

The windfall discovery amounted to little more than grief for contractor Bob Kitts, who couldn't agree on how to split the money with homeowner Amanda Reece.

It didn't help Reece much, either. She testified in a deposition that she was considering bankruptcy and that a bank recently foreclosed on one of her properties.

And 21 descendants of Patrick Dunne - the wealthy businessman who stashed the money that was minted in a time of bank collapses and joblessness - will each get a mere fraction of the find.

"If these two individuals had sat down and resolved their disputes and divided the money, the heirs would have had no knowledge of it," said attorney Gid Marcinkevicius, who represents the Dunne estate. "Because they were not able to sit down and divide it in a rational way, they both lost."

Kitts was tearing the bathroom walls out of an 83-year-old home near Lake Erie in 2006 when he discovered two green metal lockboxes suspended inside a wall below the medicine chest, hanging from a wire. Inside were white envelopes with the return address for "P. Dunne News Agency."

"I ripped the corner off of one," Kitts said during a deposition in a lawsuit filed by Dunne's estate. "I saw a 50 and got a little dizzy."

He called Reece, a former high school classmate who had hired him for a remodeling project.

They counted the cash and posed for photographs, both grinning like lottery jackpot winners.

But how to share? She offered 10 percent. He wanted 40 percent. From there things went sour.

A month after The Plain Dealer reported on the case in December 2007, Dunne's estate got involved, suing for the right to the money.

By then there was little left to claim.

Reece testified in a deposition that she spent about $14,000 on a trip to Hawaii and had sold some of the rare late 1920s bills. She said about $60,000 was stolen from a shoe box in her closet but testified that she never reported the theft to police.

Kitts said Reece accused him of stealing the money and began leaving him threatening phone messages. Marcinkevicius doesn't believe the money was stolen but said he couldn't prove otherwise.

Reece's phone number has been disconnected, and her attorney Robert Lazzaro did not return a call seeking comment. There were no court records showing that Reece had filed for bankruptcy.

Kitts said he lost a lot of business because media reports on the case portrayed him as greedy, but he feels vindicated by the court's decision to give him a share.

"I was not the bad guy that everybody made me out to be," Kitts said. "I didn't do anything wrong."

He's often asked why he didn't keep his mouth shut and pocket the money. He says he wasn't raised that way.

"It was a neat experience, something that won't happen again," Kitts said. "In that regard, it was pretty fascinating; seeing that amount of money in front of you was breathtaking. In that regard, I don't regret it.

"The threats and all - that's the part that makes you wish it never happened."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
What would you have done?
Entry #12


Avatar konane -
Property owner owns the house and everything in the house both known and undiscovered.

Had I been the contractor my obligation would be to inform the homeowner and turn the money over to them.

Had I been the homeowner would probably have considered the 40% the contractor wanted, maybe even 50%, to be reasonable because without honesty of the contractor the homeowner would have never known about the find.

Win/win for all is the best way.
Avatar AceKicka -
I agree Konane - 40% to the contractor would've been very fair. Especially when he had been honest about finding it.

30% maybe. But a 10% offer was just being greedy and look what being greedy got her.
Avatar konane -
Ace, my son said he read there were other relatives involved in ownership of that house which probably complicated division of any greater amount to the contractor.
Avatar NBey6 -
Well it appears to me that he should have gotten whatever the homeowner decided to give him. I would've given 10 - 15% tops.

That's why somethings are best just taken to the grave. Good guys never win. LOL On the hand the owner forgot about that little thing called Karma.
Avatar pacattack05 -
I would have kept the whole damn thing. And Karma can kiss my ass.
Avatar PeacefulMan -
In my opinion, the contractor was only entitled to whatever the homeowners felt was appropriate.
~ Peace ~

Post a Comment

Please Log In

To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.

Not a member yet?

If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.