Estate of Dickson CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 2014 No. C074221Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to vacate because the appellant failed to establish extrinsic fraud or any other legal ground to invalidate the judgment. The court affirmed that the statutory escheat procedure provides for constructive notice, and the State Controller had no duty to provide personal notice to the appellant.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate the judgment based on claims of extrinsic fraud or excusable mistake.
Whether the State Controller had a legal duty to notify the appellant of the escheat proceedings.
Whether the appellant's reliance on an email from the State Controller constituted extrinsic fraud.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The State Controller had no legal duty to give notice to Mr. Watkins, his counsel or any heir hunter service of the petition filed by Kent Orr.”

“We conclude the trial court properly found no extrinsic fraud.”

Filed 6/17/14 Estate of Dickson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

Estate of ALVIN C. DICKSON, JR., Deceased. C074221

REGINALD BRYAN WATKINS, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2012- 00129243-PR-OP-FRC) Petitioner and Appellant,

KENT R. ORR et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

In this case arising from the estate of decedent Alvin C. Dickson, Jr., appellant Reginald Bryan Watkins appeals from an order declining to vacate a judgment previously entered in favor of respondents Kent R. Orr, et al. (Orr), heirs of Dickson who managed to reverse the escheat of Dickson’s estate to the State of California and have the estate transferred to them. We shall affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate.

BACKGROUND On September 10, 2012, Orr sued the State Controller to recover escheated property. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1355.)1 He alleged Dickson died intestate on September 4, 2009, and that the San Bernardino County Superior Court had entered an order of final distribution on February 14, 2012, declaring the estate escheated. Orr alleged he was Dickson’s heir under the intestacy laws, being Dickson’s second cousin once removed, and had learned of the San Bernardino case via an heir tracing company. On October 18, 2012, the Sacramento Superior Court filed a judgment granting Orr’s petition. On December 20, 2012, Watkins filed what was captioned as a petition to modify the Sacramento County judgment, alleging he was a “paternal first cousin” of Dickson. He alleged that, through another heir tracing service, he notified the State Controller of his status as Dickson’s heir on September 10, 2012, but did not hear back until October 22, 2012, when the State Controller advised him of the Sacramento County judgment. Watkins argued that the State Controller was on notice of his claim and had a duty to notify him of the Sacramento action, and the failure to do so justified relief, in the form of vacating the judgment in favor of Orr, and entering a judgment in Watkins’s favor. He also alleged that the State Controller improperly released the funds to Orr. Watkins listed 17 first cousins he alleged collectively were entitled to Dickson’s estate in preference to Orr’s claims. Orr opposed the motion, arguing the State Controller had a duty to distribute the funds pursuant to the Sacramento County judgment, regardless of allegedly closer-in- blood heirs, and alleging fatal defects in Watkins’s papers, including his failure to

Estate of Dickson CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DUARTE , J.

RAYE , P. J.

MURRAY , J.

AI Brief