conditions when held by financial institutions, and the monies are escheatable together with “any interest or dividend which the financial institution would pay to the oumer upon claim therefor” (emphasis added)). In this respect, one legal encyclopedia explains that unclaimed property acts are not true escheat statutes ... in that the state does not acquire title to the abandoned property but is merely the custodian of the property, and the owner can reclaim the property at any time. The custodial nature of the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act serves to establish that the rights of the state are merely derivative from the rights of the owners of the abandoned property. 30A C.J.S. Escheat § 2 (2009); accord Smolow v. Hafer, 598 Pa. 561, 571, 959 A.2d 298, 304 (2008) (<HOLDING>); State v. Elsinore Shore Assocs., 249
holding that property is not abandoned by operation of law unless the debtor formally scheduled the property before the close of the case recognizing that pursuant to pennsylvanias unclaimed property act abandoned property is held in perpetual temporary custody of the state holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that a debtor must formally schedule the property before the close of the case in order for such property to be abandoned pursuant to section 554c recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property