Court Opinion

ID: 9676443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:41.868074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.684814
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion is not logical; rather, it is result oriented. The Revenue Cabinet does not contend that the checks are property that would escheat. With this concession, it cannot be logically argued that the bank account is owned or is the property of the payee on the check. Blue Cross and Blue Shield alone has authority over the bank account; it properly can draw on it or shift it around. Blue Cross and Blue Shield can legally spend it. These rights are not consistent with the conclusion by the majority that the sums represented by the checks are a liquidated debt.
The bank account is the property of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, subject perhaps to possibility of a claim on the account. The bank account is not owned by payees on the checks and thus is not property unclaimed by the owner, as provided for in the escheat statute.
Accordingly, I dissent.
AKER and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join in this dissent.