Agnes Suever v. Kathleen Connell

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 200908-15884California6,774 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Framework

Title 10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure governs unclaimed property located within California. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 1300, et seq. Its purpose is “to provide for the receipt, custody, investment, management, disposal, escheat and permanent escheat of various classes of unclaimed prop- erty . . . .” Id. § 1305. “ ‘Escheat[ ]’ . . . means the vesting in the state of title to property the whereabouts of whose owner is unknown or whose owner is unknown . . . subject to the right of claimants to appear and claim the escheated property . . . .” Id.

§ 1300(c). “ ‘Permanent escheat’ means the absolute vest- ing in the state of title to property . . . pursuant to judicial determination, pursuant to a proceeding of escheat as pro- vided by Chapter 5 . . . of [Title 10], or pursuant to operation of law and the barring of all claims to the property by the for- mer owner thereof or his successors.” Id. § 1300(d).

During the time in which Plaintiffs submitted their claims to the Controller’s Office for return of their escheated assets, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1540(c) stated: SUEVER v. CONNELL …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.