Mar 7, 2014 4 min read

What’s the difference between abiding by the old saying, “Finders, keepers; losers, weepers,” and a theft charge?

In one Washington County Court case, it’s a startlingly large amount of cash – $60,000 – that home remodelers uncovered inside the wall of a dormer in a house in Charleroi.

Attorneys for two defendants and a prosecutor went round and round in court Friday about the legal ramifications of the find.

First, here’s some background provided by the attorneys and information available on the Internet.

Frank (Foxy) Dubnansky Jr. lived in a house at 806 Meadow Ave. that a city data website said was built in 1910. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran who served during World War II, he worked at the Charleroi Corning Glass plant. He lived in the Meadow Avenue home with his sister, Margaret, who died before he did.

When Dubnansky died in a nursing home Dec. 2, 2010, at age 85, his niece, Barbara Sigler of Pittsburgh, was named executrix of his estate. She sold the house Aug. 23, 2012, for $18,000 to Donald Smaracheck, who owns a construction business, and renovations began at 806 Meadow sometime before summer of that year.

Smaracheck heard his four renovators happened upon the hidden cash, dividing the money among themselves and began spending it.

In December 2012, Charleroi Regional police filed charges of theft, receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy against Richard Luketich, 29, of Fayette City; Jason F. Latchem, 45, of Monessen; Bryan Presock, 34, of 1215 McKean Ave., Charleroi; and Robert Varner, 51, of 3 Latta Hollow Road, Roscoe. They are free on bond.

On Friday, attorney John Puskar, who represents Presock, argued the commonwealth can’t claim Smaracheck is the victim of the theft because he had no knowledge of the money that was inside a wall.

“The person who put the money there was the victim,” Puskar told Judge John DiSalle.

“If there was a victim, it was the estate of Frank Dubnansky, not the purchaser. … My client has denied involvement.” He asked the judge to dismiss the charges because of what he sees as a flaw.

There is no wording in the deed that states Smaracheck was buying both the house and its contents, Puskar said. The newest bills dated from the early 1980s, but no one knows if Margaret or Frank Dubnansky placed them inside the wall. According to Puskar, when Margaret Dubnansky died, Frank Dubnansky inherited her estate.

“I just think it’s a crime, basically,” replied Assistant District Attorney John Paul Lewis.

“Case law is very sketchy on this issue,” said Puskar, who mentioned a situation with some similarities in Colorado in which attorneys’ fees ate up most of the found money, and a King’s Bench case from England that dealt with a ring in a house.

The judge asked if there was any question about the renovators being permitted to work in the part of the home where the money had been hidden, or if any measures were taken to try to determine the rightful owner of the cash.

Lewis said common sense indicates it’s wrong for people who are hired to do work to “secret away money and use it for themselves. I think it would be a great injustice, if we’re quarreling about who the victim is, to dismiss the case. The law requires you to take reasonable efforts to restore property.”

Puskar said he thinks Smaracheck should have taken steps to notify the executrix about the matter.

“If there’s restitution owed, I want it to be paid to the right victim,” Puskar said.

Latchem came to court Friday but had no comment after the proceeding, at which his attorney, Thomas Agrafiotis, said Smaracheck could pursue a remedy by filing a lawsuit.

DiSalle took the matter under advisement.