Douglass v. Reilly
| Decision Date | 23 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | 36134-9-III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HARLAN D. DOUGLASS & MAXINE H. DOUGLASS, husband and wife, Respondents, v. BRYAN J. REILLY, an individual, and DOES 1-10, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Bryan Reilly appeals a jury verdict finding him liable for unlawfully converting property owned by his former employer Harlan Douglass. We affirm.
FACTS[1]
Harlan Douglass is a wealthy real estate developer who owned a home and acreage in Colbert, Washington. As a result of childhood experiences during the great depression, Mr. Douglass developed a mistrust of banks and had a habit of stashing away large sums of cash in shoeboxes, hidden inside the family home. The cash was primarily large-denomination bills. By 2014, Mr. Douglass had amassed four boxes full of cash. A tally of one of the boxes added up to $264, 900. Given the boxes all appeared similar in size and content, it was estimated the four boxes contained approximately $1 million.[2]
In addition to the cash, Mr. Douglass kept other valuables in his home, including diamond rings, gold coins, and Rolex watches.
Bryan Reilly grew up near Mr. Douglass and his family socialized with the Douglasses. When Mr. Reilly entered his teenage years, he began performing odd jobs for the Douglasses and was paid through the family business. Mr. Reilly's tasks included retrieving mail, letting workers in for repairs interacting with housekeepers, and generally protecting Mr Douglass's house. Mr. Reilly was entrusted with a remote control letting him open the gate leading to Mr Douglass's house and a garage door opener. Tax records for 2013 and 2014 indicate Mr. Reilly had an income of less than $10, 000 per year.
In 2013, Mr. Reilly began purloining money and absconding with other valuable items from the Douglass residence, then selling the items for cash. In March 2014, Mr. Reilly obtained two diamond rings, which he then sold for $20, 300.[3] In December 2013, Mr. Reilly appropriated two Rolex watches, which were sold for $9, 300.[4] Mr. Reilly's bank records indicate he deposited money from the sale of Mr. Douglass's valuables into his bank account and then used the funds in his account to secure loans and purchases of high-end vehicles and boats. Throughout 2013 and 2014, Mr. Reilly's illegal conduct went undetected.[5]
At some point in early 2015, Mr. Reilly arranged for a housekeeper to begin cleaning the Douglass home. During one of the cleaning sessions, the housekeeper stumbled upon Mr. Douglass's shoeboxes full of cash. The discovery made the housekeeper nervous. She immediately placed calls to Mr. Reilly and Mr. Douglass. Mr. Reilly was the first to respond. He advised he knew about the shoeboxes and he urged the housekeeper not to tell Mr. Douglass about her discovery. The housekeeper did not comply. The housekeeper informed Mr. Douglass of what she had found and requested the money be secured in a safe.
After the housekeeper's discovery, the shoeboxes were moved to a safe deposit box. Meanwhile Mr. Douglass commissioned a custom safe for his valuables. Upon completion, the safe was placed in Mr. Douglass's basement. Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law helped move the shoeboxes of money into the safe. Mr. Douglass had a difficult time with the safe's combination. The combination code was written on a sticky note and placed in a medicine cabinet. At some later point, it appears the sticky note with the combination was relocated to a kitchen counter top.
In September 2015, Mr. Douglass left town for a trip to Paris. During his absence, Mr. Reilly was tasked with facilitating the installation of a security system in the Douglass home. Once armed, the security system's use of different key fobs and pass codes would enable Mr. Douglass to track various authorized individuals who came and went from his home. Mr. Reilly received a fob as an authorized individual, as did members of Mr. Douglass's family. According to the alarm company, Mr. Douglass's alarm system was fully operable and set to go live on September 24, 2015.
On September 24, 2015, Mr. Reilly contacted the housekeeper and asked her to perform a last-minute cleaning. Mr. Reilly told the housekeeper he would meet her at the house on September 25 to explain the new alarm system. Because of the scheduled house cleaning, Mr. Reilly did not activate the house alarm on September 24. However, Mr. Reilly did not show up on the 25th as planned. The housekeeper proceeded to clean the house and left around noon or 1:00 pm. The house was not armed when the housekeeper left.
Mr. Reilly left his parents' home at 2:00 pm on September 25. At approximately 5:02 p.m., [6] Mr. Reilly arrived at Hills Resort in Priest Lake, Idaho. A direct trip from Colbert to Hills Resort would typically last 1.5 hours. September 25 was a Friday. Mr. Reilly spent the weekend at Hills Resort.
On Saturday, September 26, Mr. Douglass's home was discovered to have been burglarized. The safe was open and the shoeboxes of cash were missing. A detective dispatched to the scene found the circumstances suspicious. There was no evidence of forced entry. A house window had been left open, but the placement of the window screen indicated the window had been opened from inside, not outside. The detective surmised the burglary was an inside job. According to the detective, the only potential insiders were Mr. Douglass's son, his daughter-in-law, the house cleaner, and Mr. Reilly. The detective's subsequent investigation ruled out all of the aforementioned insiders except for Mr. Reilly.
Mr. Reilly met with Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law after he returned home from Hills Resort. The three decided to investigate the grounds surrounding Mr. Douglass's property to see if the intruder left any evidence. A search took place on Sunday, September 27, with no results. On Monday, September 28, Mr. Reilly went out to Mr. Douglass's property with his four-wheeler. He sent a text message to Mr. Douglass's daughter-in-law, advising he had spotted an unoccupied vehicle parked near the Douglass house. Mr. Reilly later called Mr. Douglass's daughter-in-law to report he found a shoebox lid bearing a note with a tally of funds. The lid clearly came from one of Mr. Douglass's cash boxes. The son and daughter-in-law soon arrived at the property to help investigate.
Once Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law caught up with Mr. Reilly, the three began searching the area around where Mr. Reilly said he found the shoebox lid. Nothing was discovered. It was beginning to get dark. Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law indicated they were going to leave, but Mr. Reilly said he wanted to check one more area. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Reilly came back toward Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law, yelling he had found something. He claimed he could see "50s and 100s." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Apr. 25, 2018) at 1595. Mr. Reilly then accompanied Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law to the site of his alleged discovery.
At the discovery site, Mr. Douglass's son and daughter-in-law could see a white plastic bag, buried in pine needles. The bag looked like it might contain garbage. No money was visible. Mr. Reilly insisted they look inside the bag. Mr. Douglass's daughter-in-law poked into the bag and still saw nothing. Only after it was torn open was it possible to see the bag contained a large amount of money. According to a later tally, the money in the bag totaled $357, 252. Mr. Douglass's family surmised the money in the bag came from one of the stolen boxes. The remaining cash was never recovered.
Mr Douglass sued Mr. Reilly for conversion by theft of the money from the safe. The complaint was later amended to include charges of conversion by theft of other property on numerous occasions from 2013 through 2015.
During the pretrial phase of the case, the trial court made two rulings pertinent to this appeal. First, the court denied Mr. Reilly's motion to bifurcate the multiple conversion claims. Second, the court granted Mr. Douglass's motion in limine to preclude evidence that Mr. Reilly had not been criminally charged with theft. In granting the motion, the court noted it would also "probably" sustain an objection to any testimony that Mr. Reilly had been charged criminally, should such evidence be elicited at trial. RP (Apr. 6, 2018) at 85-86.
The trial proceedings lasted three weeks. During trial, Mr. Douglass's attorney asked Mr. Reilly's mother if she was aware Mr. Reilly had been charged with six felonies "associated with the theft of property from Harlan and Maxine Douglass." RP (Apr. 17, 2018) at 238. Mr. Reilly immediately objected to this question and moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Mr. Douglass violated a previous court order on the motion in limine. The trial court sustained Mr. Reilly's evidentiary objection but denied the mistrial motion.
At the close of Mr. Douglass's case-in-chief, Mr. Reilly made a motion for a directed verdict as to the theft from the safe arguing insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial