Court Opinion

ID: 9754193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:49:32.329124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:50.478468
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Bell:
I would affirm the Order of the lower Court.
The Act of July 10, 1963, P. L. 233, 27 P.S. §601, provides as follows:
“No action for escheat, or for payment into the State Treasury without escheat, shall be commenced or maintained unless such action has been, or is commenced, within fifteen years after the property sought in such action shall first have escheated, become escheatable* or payable into the State Treasury without escheat under any act of the General Assembly.”
*535The majority Opinion states: “We read this statute as an attempt by the legislature to provide a definitive end to the possibility of escheat proceedings after fifteen years have passed. However, we cannot reason that the Commonwealth is precluded under this provision where it lacks the knowledge that certain property has become escheatable.”
The first sentence accurately states the clear intent of the Legislature, as well as the law. The next sentence in the majority Opinion—the sentence upon which the Majority bases two of its important holdings and conclusions—flies in the teeth of the clear language of the Act.
I disagree with the holding with respect to the deposit-moneys for the 850 policies which were sunk for the benefit of INA and the destruction of 20 other properties. In the first place, the Commonwealth had the burden of proof which it is clear it did not sustain, and secondly and more importantly, the aforesaid Statute of Limitations undoubtedly bars the Commonwealth’s claim.
For these reasons, I dissent.

 Italics, ours.