Matter of Jacob Lee Heckart

Case Number

25PR00554

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 11/10/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Death

Tentative Ruling

Appearances required.

The following analysis is provided for the Court at the hearing:

Kent Heckart (“Petitioner”) is the uncle of Jacob Lee Heckart, a missing person.  Kent Heckart petitions the Court to establish the fact, time, and place of Jacob Lee Heckart’s death as 11:00 postmeridian, in San Francisco, California, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 103450 et seq.

The following two problems with Petitioner’s request in this case must be addressed at the hearing: 

First, there is no evidence before the Court showing that Jacob Lee Heckart is deceased in fact, only that Jacob Lee Heckart is missing.

Petitioner offers testimony that Jacob Lee Heckart has not been seen or heard from for a continuous period of five years, by numerous persons who would be likely to have seen or heard from Jacob Lee Heckart during that time.  This, unfortunately, only gives the court facts it can rely upon to find Jacob Lee Heckart has been missing for the statutory period required to raise a presumption of death, but does not give any facts that can be relied upon to find Jacob Lee Heckart is factually deceased.

The procedure in Health and Safety Code section 103450 et. seq. was enacted by our Legislature to establish a fact of death that has in fact occurred, but was not previously recorded or documented:

If, upon the hearing, the allegations of the petition are established to the satisfaction of the court, the court may make an order determining that the birth, death, or marriage did in fact occur at the time and place shown by the proofs adduced at the hearing.

(Hlth. & Saf. Code, §103475.)  Thus, in order to establish a fact of death, some form of evidence of death must be submitted showing that the missing person was in the type of scenario where “death is the only satisfactory explanation.”  (In re Starr (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 487, 496.)

For example, previous Petitions brought in this Court to establish the fact of death, involved factual scenarios of human remains, evidence of potentially fatal injuries, etc. Other published decisions of our Court of Appeal have dealt with scenarios of a fleeing fugitive (In re Starr, supra), a boat being “found abandoned four miles off the shore [], with [the missing person’s] wallet and spatters of human blood on board (Conservatorship of Geiger (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 127, 129), and a 75 year old who initially survived the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, “seen immediately after the earthquake in front of the hotel in which he stayed and which was within the district presently swept by the fire . . . [but]. . . disappeared, however, at the time of said fire, and has never been seen or heard of thereafter (Linneweber v. Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America (1916) 30 Cal.App. 315, 316 [alterations made for context]).

Unlike the above examples, where evidence of the circumstances shows a scenario where death is the only satisfactory explanation, making a finding in this case that Jacob Lee Heckart is in fact dead is not appropriate when there are no facts on the record showing Jacob Lee Heckart was injured, or was in a precarious situation that was likely to lead to death.  Although Petitioner testifies that Jacob told a roommate that he was going to San Francisco to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, there is no testimony offered by that roommate, and no credible evidence that a person was seen jumping from the bridge at that time, or that a jumper matching Jacob’s description was seen jumping off the bridge.

Making such a finding in this case would create a legal nightmare if Jacob Lee Heckart were to suddenly reappear. In one extreme case, a family who had their father declared dead after being missing for the statutory time period, was ordered to pay back Social Security Death Benefits paid out as a result of that order, when the father returned 20 years later:

https://archive.findlaw.com/blog/not-so-dead-mans-family-has-to-pay-back-benefits-govt-insists/

This conclusion is bolstered by the statutes in the Probate Code allowing interested persons to petition the Court to have someone “presumed dead” so the interested person can administer the estate of the missing person.  The Probate Code provides a procedure to have a missing person declared “presumed dead,” and provides procedural protections for that missing person if they ever were to be “found.”  (Prob. Code, §§ 12400 et. seq.)

Thus, it appears the Health and Safety Code procedure sought in this case is not the appropriate avenue to pursue, based on the evidence before the Court.

Second, the proposed time and date of death is improper, even if the Court could make a factual finding of death.

To have a person “presumed dead” (the more appropriate procedure here), the death is presumed to have occurred at the end of the five-year period, unless there is sufficient evidence to establish that death occurred earlier. (Prob. Code,§ 12401). This statutory presumption allows courts to establish a presumption of death without direct evidence of the missing person's demise.

Here, the proposed date and time of death is not proper, because the proposed date and time is when Jacob Lee Heckart was last seen, not at the end of the five year period from the date Jacob Lee Heckart was last seen.

As a result of the above analysis, it is recommended the Court deny the petition.