2018-00242005-CU-PT

Arden C. White Inv., LLC vs. Controller of the State of Ca.

Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Order Determining Entitlement to Escheated Property

Filed By: White, Arden C.

Petition for Order Determining Entitlement to Escheated Property and Ordering Payment to Entitled Parties pursuant to CCP 1353 and 1355 is unopposed and is granted.

Arden C. White Investigations, LLC, (“White”) is a limited liability company, licensed by the State of Utah as a private investigation firm (Utah License No. PI 00974). White has filed a Petition for Order Determining Entitlement to Escheated Property and Ordering Payment to Entitled Parties pursuant to CCP Section 1355 in this matter The decedent, Cornelius Hardwick, died intestate on March 30, 2011 and his estate was administered in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. At the time of the underlying probate of the Estate of Cornelius Hardwick, no known heirs of Cornelius Hardwick were found.

On April 18, 2017, the Superior Court of Los Angeles in the probate action ordered as

follows:

“After all fees, commissions and credits are taken, the cash balance of $82,368.73 remains for distribution. The cash balance, of $82,368.73, less any incidental costs of closing, together with all other property belonging to the estate, whether described herein or not, is distributed as follows: Intestate Heirs, Legatees, Devisees of Decedent Cornelius Hardwick, Whose Identities are Unknown c/o State of California, California State Controller, Bureau of Unclaimed

Property, 300 Capital Mall, 8th Floor, PO Box 942850: Escheat; cash reserves; 100%:
$82,368.73.

The Estate of Cornelius Hardwick distributed $82,368.73 to the State of California, State Controller’s Office. The funds are now being held as State Controller Property ID #990139861 for the heirs-at-law of the decedent open to claims pursuant CCP section 1355. (Declaration of Arden C. White)

Given the Decedent died intestate and was not survived by issue, parents or issue of a parent, or grandparents, his property properly passes to the issue of grandparents, namely the first cousins. (Prob. Code § 6402(d).) “Under section 1355, the right to escheated property ‘belongs only to the heirs who timely file section 1355 petitions, whatever their degree of kinship to the decedent. If a ‘prior heir’ who could file a timely claim fails to do so, the express terms of section 1355 bar him or her absolutely from making a claim to the estate thereafter.” (Estate of McGuigan (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 639, 646 [citations omitted].) “Moreover, ‘when statutory escheat procedures are followed’ and the court determines that the petitioners are heirs of the decedent, they are entitled to immediate distribution of the escheated estate, regardless of whether there might be unknown heirs closer in line to the decedent, who will be forever divested of their interest in the estate.” (Id. at 647 [citations omitted].)

Here, White identified three first cousins, once removed, of the decedent: Marc L. Holloway, Michael G. Holloway and Vicki M. Smith. Marc L. Holloway,

Michael G. Holloway and Vicki M. Smith have each assigned 40% of his/her share of these funds to White in consideration for being located and informed of their respective interests in the funds held by the State of California from the decedent’s estate.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1355 provides in relevant part: Within five years after date of entry of judgment in any proceeding had under the provisions of Chapter 5, or within five years after completion of notice by publication in

an escheat action taken under the provisions of Section 1415, a person not a party or privy to such proceeding or action, if not otherwise barred, may file a petition in the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento, or as provided in Section 401, showing his claim or right to the money or other property, or the proceeds thereof Said petition shall be verified; and, in a proceeding for the recovery by the petitioner as heir, devisee, or legatee, or the successor in interest of an heir, devisee, or legatee, of money or other property received by the State from the estate of a decedent…

Pursuant to Probate Code section 7000, “…title to a decedent’s property passes on the decedent’s death to the person to whom it is devised in the decedent’s last will or, in the absence of such a devise, to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in the laws governing intestate succession.’ Pursuant to Probate Code section 6400, “Any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in this part.” The Declaration of Arden C. White shows that the only

known heirs are first cousins, once removed of the decedent.

As noted, California Probate Code Section 6402 states in relevant part:

(d) If there is no surviving issue, parent or issue of a parent, but the decedent is survived by one or more grandparents or issue of grandparents, to the grandparent or grandparents equally, or to the issue of those grandparents if there is no surviving grandparent, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent.

The decedent was survived by Marc L. Holloway, Michael G. Holloway and Vicki M. Smith, the issue of the grandparents of the decedent. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1355, a petition must be filed “within five years after date of entry of judgment in any proceeding had under the Provisions of

Chapter 5, or within five years after completion of notice by publication in an escheat action . . .” The Order of Distribution for the Estate of Comelius Hardwick was filed on April 18, 2017, less than five years ago prior to the filing of this Petition. (Declaration of White)

California’s declared public policy is to avoid instances of permanent escheat whenever possible. (Mannheim v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 678.). In Mannheim, the Court states In the present case the Legislature has determined that escheats are to be avoided wherever possible. Such a conclusion cannot be considered arbitrary, for the courts have long held that escheats are not favored by the law. (Estate of Spinosa (1953) 117 Cal. App.2d 364, 372 [255 P.2d 843]; People v. Stockton Sav. & Loan Soc. (1901) 133 Cal. 611,612 [65 P. 1078]; 18 Cal.Jur.2d, Escheats, § 3, p. 270.) It was certainly within legislative discretion to effectuate this policy determination by the means chosen, despite some incidental benefit to certain individuals.

The Petition filed by Arden C. White Investigations, LLC complies with the requirements of CCP Section 1355 by providing a detailed family history of the decedent as known by petitioner.

The Court will sign the proposed order