Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCP02729, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02729    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Petitioner Joshua Anthony Rogers, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Diana Rogers’ Petition to Establish Claim to Escheated Property

Petitioner Joshua Anthony Rogers, by and through his guardian ad litem, Diana Rogers, petitions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1355 to establish a claim to the sum of $28,063.95 in the custody of the Controller of the State of California, Betty T. Yee.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1355 provides that upon such a petition, “[t]he court must thereupon try the issue as issues are tried in civil actions; and if it is determined that such person is entitled to the money or other property or the proceeds thereof, it must order the property, if it has not been sold, to be delivered to him.”

Petitioner fails to meet his burden of showing he is entitled to the $28,063.95 he claims.  Though the facts are undisputed, petitioner does not show why he, Joshua Anthony Rogers, is entitled to the property. 

The money originated from the estate of Daniel McCoy, Jr.  In 2004, the Superior Court of California, County of Imperial issued an order of final distribution of McCoy, Jr.’s estate, including $24,864.87 (not $28,063.95) to “the State of California of Missing Persons” on behalf of Daniel C. McCoy III, whereabouts unknown.  (Pet., Ex. A., p. 6.) 

The remaining evidence shows: (1) decedent Daniel McCoy, Jr. had a sister, Joyce Lovina McCoy (Pet., ¶ 7, Ex. E); (2) Joyce Lovina McCoy had a son, Elton Cox, Jr. (¶ 8, Ex. F); (3) Elton Cox, Jr. had a daughter, Diana Renee Cox (¶ 9, Ex. G); and (4) Diana Renee Cox/Rogers gave birth to a son, petitioner Joshua Anthony Rogers, on March 17, 2005.  (¶ 10, Ex. C.) 

Petitioner thus proves that he is related to Daniel C. McCoy III, to whom money was distributed from the estate of Daniel McCoy, Jr.  Other than being related to the McCoys, petitioner provides no evidence or explanation of why he is entitled to that money.  He is only connected to the money via a chain of relations from (a) McCoy III to (b) Joyce Lovina McCoy to (c) Elton Cox, Jr. to (d) Diana Renee Cox/Rogers to (e) petitioner.  Each link in that chain requires additional evidence. 

Petitioner provides no evidence of what happened to McCoy III or whether, if deceased, McCoy III had any heirs.  Assuming McCoy III is deceased with no heirs and Joyce Lovina McCoy was entitled to the money, petitioner provides no evidence of what happened to her and why her claim should pass on to her son Elton Cox, Jr.  The same goes for Elton Cox, Jr. and why his claim passed to Diana Rogers.  Finally, as for petitioner’s mother Diana Rogers, she is alive and was appointed as petitioner’s guardian ad litem in this action.  Petitioner gives no reason why he has a greater claim to this money than does his mother, despite only claiming it through her.

The petition is denied without prejudice to a more complete petition that responds to the concerns noted herein. 

The Clerk shall amend the name of the Respondent to be “Betty T. Yee, Controller of the State of California.”