Posted on 07/09/2007 5:57:37 AM PDT by John Jorsett
Nearly 15 years ago, the state of California seized about $25,000 worth of stock that Richard Valdes had set aside and forgotten about.
He's been fighting to get it back almost ever since.
Valdes' stock was in an escrow account that the state declared dormant. But no one from the government tried to contact him before the shares were taken and sold. Valdes said he was effectively robbed of stock that would now be worth at least $100,000.
"It's unbelievable to me that they can destroy records and sell your property without notifying you," Valdes, 71, said. "I've lived in the same Newport Beach area for 50 years. It's very easy to get ahold of me."
[snip]
But on April 30, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court decision, sending the case back to Shubb with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted the state's sale of unclaimed property. The appeals court noted that citizens have a due-process right to be notified of the possible loss of their property.
The reversal buttressed the legal argument that the unclaimed property law "wasn't designed to be a revenue stream or a profit center," Palmer said.
The injunction sent the controller, the governor and state legislators scrambling to fill an estimated $442-million hole in the state budget for the fiscal year that began July 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That $442 million is the reason the state hasn’t been looking for owners of dormant asets.
It is not the state’s job to inform the owners of record - it is the responsibility of the financial institution that has custody of the assets.
Also, that $442 million wasn’t the issue 15 years ago when the assets were seized.
This story can’t be true. As we all know, only private corporations are greedy. The government helps people. /sarc
“We are going to take things away from you for the common good.”
It is if the state wants to seize them.
S'pse they're in a safe deposit box?? Sorry, but I disagree. ANY action that the state initiates that might impact on a citizens property MUST require a notification action (and not a small print article in some obscure weekly newspaper). A registered letter directly to the property owner is the only acceptable venue.
We just had a major go-around in Washington on a similar subject (in this case it was property seizure for mass transit).
Incorrect.
The statute says that custodial institutions are required to turn dormant accounts over to the state if the steps they take to alert asset owners are fruitless.
Clearly it is in the custodial institutions' interest to find the owners, because if the owners maintain ownership and continue to keep the assets at the original institution, the institution will continue to collect fees for managing the assets.
Clue: Send those change of address cards to everyone you can think of!!
The asset owner initiates the process by neglecting their assets.
A registered letter directly to the property owner is the only acceptable venue.
Where does this arbitrary diktat come from?
Correct.
One should always notify one's bank and employer of a change of address, as well as the Post Office.
It's easy to do, and will save you a lot of trouble.
I guess you don't know about the concept of allowing assets to "appreciate." Can you discern and articulate a difference between "buy-and-hold" and "neglect?"
Change of address not an issue here. They just took his account, because he wasn't churning it enough, or something.
When you go after these funds, they make you prove who you are either by an old check or something not really available to someone else.
Been there. Done that. $700!!
I have had Bank accounts that say if there is no action on them (5 years), they are considered dormant and will be turned over to the state.
I hope those banks don’t also have a slogan “like a rock” or using the word “stability” or anything like it. Does that also apply to safety deposit boxes? The funds in your IRA?
Indeed I can.
Someone who is buying and holding securities will usually report their dividend income on their taxes using the statements that their custodial institution sends them.
They do not allow their tax documents to return unopened to the sender for years.
If someone is buying and holding hard goods that they keep in a safety deposit box, they will pay the fees for the box rather than fail to pay for the box for years.
Another good point.
I would pefer a private institution attempt to locate me, rather than give the government carte blanche to investigate all my finances on the strength of tracking me down to return neglected assets to me.
Periodically, my state’s Attorney General runs radio ads soliciting people to call a toll free number to check if they have millions in unclaimed property. It’s really a sting to find tax cheats, deadbeat dads and people with outstanding warrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.