Taylor v. Yee

• Decision Date: 29 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–169.,15–169.
• Citation: 136 S.Ct. 929 (Mem),194 L.Ed.2d 237
• Parties: Chris Lusby TAYLOR, et al. v. Betty YEE, individually and in her official capacity as State Controller of the State of California, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

136 S.Ct. 929 (Mem)

194 L.Ed.2d 237

Chris Lusby TAYLOR, et al.

v.Betty YEE, individually and in her official capacity as State Controller of the State of California, et al.

No. 15–169.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 29, 2016.

The motion of Shareholder Services Association and The Securities Transfer Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Unclaimed Property Professionals Organization for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice ALITO

, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari.

California's Unclaimed Property Law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1510 et seq. (West 2007 and Cum. Supp. 2016), permits the State to confiscate forgotten security deposits, uncashed money orders, unused insurance benefits, idle shares of stock, and even the undisturbed contents of safe-deposit boxes and bank accounts if those assets lie dormant for the statutorily required time period (in this case, three years). Unless the forgotten property's rightful owner can be located, the State uses the funds in these accounts for its own benefit.

The petition in this case asks us to decide whether the California law provides property owners with constitutionally sufficient notice before escheating their financial assets. The Due Process Clause requires States to give adequate notice before seizing private property. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)

(Although "[m]any controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause," that provision undoubtedly requires that, before seizing private property, the government must give "notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case"). When a State is required to give notice, it must do so through processes "reasonably calculated" to reach the interested party—here, the property owner. See id., at 318, 70 S.Ct. 652. Because the seizure of private property is no small thing, notification procedures may not be empty rituals: "[P]rocess which is a mere gesture is not due process." Id., at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652. Whether the means and methods employed by a State to notify owners of a pending escheat meet the constitutional floor is an important question.

In recent years, States have shortened the periods during which property must lie dormant before being labeled abandoned and subject to seizure. See Bower,...