Posts

Showing posts from February, 2016

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Unclaimed Property Case, But Fires a Shot Across the Bow of "Cash-strapped States"

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order declining to hear the case of Taylor v. Yee .  In Taylor , the United States Court of Appeals upheld a federal court's dismissal of a case challenging the methods used by California to notify owners that there property is about to be, or has been, escheated to the state. Specifically, the Taylor plaintiffs alleged that California violated the constitutional rights of unclaimed property owners by failing to, among other things, access databases of other California government agencies for information relating to the whereabouts of unclaimed property owners. The Supreme Court's review of lower court decisions is mostly discretionary, so the decision not to review a particular case is not an approval by the Supreme Court of the decision reached below.  In fact, that seems to be especially the case here, as Justices Alito and Thomas agreed with the decision to deny review the Ninth Circuit's decision in Taylor , b

Florida Senate Bill 970 -- Will Florida Expand the Use of Estimation?

One of the most controversial issues surrounding unclaimed property audits is estimation -- the use by auditors of statistical sampling and extrapolation to calculate a holder's historical unclaimed property liability in years that there are no researchable records available.  Holders and states dispute, among other things, when such estimation is appropriate, how it should be performed, and whether estimation can be used at all when not specifically authorized by statute.  Estimation has been a commonly contested issue arising in litigation between holders and states , and is one of the issues hotly contested in connection with the proposed revision of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. While states, auditors, holders, and holder advocates dispute a number of issues with regard to estimation, until now they all agreed on at least one thing:  that unclaimed property liabilities for "estimated" years (where actual records were not reviewed) were all payable to the holde