BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Noreen Evans, Chair 2013-2014 Regular Session AB 212 (Lowenthal) As Amended June 24, 2013 Hearing Date: July 2, 2013 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No TH SUBJECT Unclaimed Property DESCRIPTION This bill would lower the threshold from $50 to $25 in the Unclaimed Property Law at which a person holding escheated property must include in his or her annual report to the State Controller the name and last known address of the owner of any escheated property. This bill would also clarify that banks and financial organizations may impose a service charge up to $2 to cover the cost of providing required notices to owners warning them that their unclaimed property may escheat to the state only if the property has a value greater than $2. BACKGROUND The Unclaimed Property Law (UPL), as revised in 1968, provides for the "escheat" of unclaimed personal property. Escheat is the reversion of property to the state by reason of the failure of the owner to inherit or claim it. The UPL specifies conditions when unclaimed property held by a third party may escheat to the state. For banks and financial organizations, unclaimed property may escheat to the state when an owner fails to act on an account for more than three years after the date the funds became distributable or payable. Existing law requires these entities to send owners of unclaimed property valued at $50 or more specified notices that identify the property and warn the owner that their property may escheat to the state unless they take certain specified actions to reclaim the property. The law permits banks and financial (more) AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 2 of ? organizations to impose a service charge of up to $2 to cover the cost of providing such notices. The UPL also establishes procedures to be followed when, after the above notices have been sent, the property goes unclaimed and reverts to the state. Under existing law, the holder must annually report on unclaimed property and turn the property over to the State Controller. (See Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 1530-1533.) Banks and financial organizations are required to submit an annual report to the Controller that identifies all property that has escheated to the state, and, for property valued at $50 or more, to identify the name, if known, and the last known address of the property owner. Escheated unclaimed property valued under $50 may be reported in the aggregate, and reporting entities need not provide the name and address of the property owner in their annual report even if they have such information. The UPL also sets forth the procedure for any person who claims an interest in the property to file a claim to recover the property from the state. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 1540-1542.) This bill, sponsored by the State Controller, would lower the threshold from $50 to $25 in the Unclaimed Property Law at which a person holding escheated property must include in his or her annual report to the State Controller the name and last known address of the owner of any escheated property. This bill would also clarify that banks and financial organizations may impose a service charge of up to $2 to cover the cost of providing required notices to owners only if the unclaimed property at issue has a value greater than $2. The bill would leave unchanged the $50 threshold amount at which banks and financial organizations must send notices to owners of unclaimed property warning them that their property will escheat to the state unless reclaimed. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law , the Unclaimed Property Law (UPL), requires property held or owing by a business association that is unclaimed for more than three years, as specified, to file a report with the State Controller and turn over that property to the state. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 1513, 1513.5, 1530-1532.) Existing law provides that if a banking or financial organization is the holder of unclaimed property and has in its records an address for the apparent owner of property valued at fifty dollars ($50) or more, the holder shall make reasonable AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 3 of ? efforts to notify the owner that the owner's property will escheat to the state on a specified date. The notice shall be mailed not less than 6 nor more than 12 months before the time when the owner's property would escheat and become reportable to the Controller. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1513.5.) Existing law permits a banking or financial organization to impose a service charge on the deposit, account, shares, or other interest for the above notice in an amount not to exceed the administrative cost of mailing or electronically sending the notice and form, and in no case to exceed two dollars ($2). (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1513.5(b).) Existing law requires, except with respect to traveler's checks and money orders, a person holding funds or other property that has escheated to the state to report the name, if known, and last known address, if any, of each person appearing from the records of the holder to be the owner of any property of value of at least fifty dollars ($50). (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1530(b).) Existing law permits escheated items of value under fifty dollars ($50) each to be reported by the holder to the State Controller in aggregate. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1530(b).) Existing law authorizes the Controller to bring an action to enforce provisions of the UPL and provides for the imposition of penalties and interest against holders who willfully fail to comply with its provisions. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1576.) Existing law authorizes any person, except another state, who claims an interest in property paid or delivered to the Controller to file a claim to the property. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1540(a).) This bill would, beginning July 1, 2014, require a person holding escheated property to include in his or her report to the Controller the name and last known address of the apparent owner of any escheated property, except travelers checks and money orders, worth at least $25. This bill would clarify that banks and financial organizations may impose a service charge of up to $2 to cover the cost of providing required notices to owners only if the unclaimed property has a value greater than $2. COMMENT AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 4 of ? 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: The Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) was created in 1959 to ensure "property owners [are] reunited with their property." (Code of Civil Procedure [Section] 1501.5(c)). Aggregate reporting makes it at best difficult and inefficient, and at worst, impossible, for the State's Unclaimed Property Program to fulfill its mission in regard to these properties. Aggregate holder reporting of unclaimed property allows for several small properties to be added together as one amount without the reporting of the actual property owner's individual owner information even when the holder is in possession of this information. This includes important information that could otherwise be reported such as [an] owner name, address, account number, and social security number. Without this information, the State Controller's Office [SCO] task of reuniting this property with its rightful owner is a nearly impossible task. Aggregate reporting presents many challenges for the Unclaimed Property Program in achieving its mission to reunite lost and abandoned property with the rightful owner. Since current statute does not require holders to report owner information on accounts valued at less than $50, aggregate properties are not itemized within the unclaimed property database or displayed on the website for owners to search via the SCO public website and claim their properties. If by chance an owner does learn that they have an aggregate property, many complexities ensue for both holders and the SCO in researching these properties and proving entitlement when a claim is made. Often times when a customer calls to make an inquiry regarding an aggregate property, the State will refer them back to the holder and conversely, the holder will refer them back to the State. This back and forth creates a great deal of frustration for the property owner and inspires very little public confidence [in] the Unclaimed Property Program or the holder. In 2011-12, the State Controller had over $12.8 million transferred to the state in aggregate, without any property owner information at all. Over the past five years, the total is over $68 million. AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 5 of ? This bill would greatly reduce the problem by requiring holders to submit detailed owner information, when available, for all [unclaimed] properties valued at $25 or more. Having the detailed owner information will significantly increase the likelihood that these properties will be returned to the rightful owner. 2. Returning unclaimed property The UPL has two parallel objectives: (1) to reunite owners with unclaimed funds or property, and (2) to give the state, rather than the holder, the beneficial use of unclaimed funds or property. (Bank of America v. Cory (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 66, 74; Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Cranston (1962) 58 Cal.2d 462, 463.) The State, through the Controller, acts as the protector of the rights of the true owner. (Bank of America, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at p. 74.) This bill arguably advances the UPL's first objective of reuniting owners with their unclaimed property by requiring banks and financial organizations to give the State Controller's Office more information about the identity of the owner of escheated property. As the Controller reasonably asserts, it is difficult to reunite owners with their lost property when unclaimed property is reported in the aggregate. Lowering the threshold for aggregate reporting from $50 to $25 will help the controller return unclaimed property to its rightful owner by requiring banks and financial organizations to provide any ownership and address data they have when they report the property to the state. While it is likely that this change would increase the volume of detail property holders will be required to submit in connection with unclaimed property reports, the Committee has not received any indication from the regulated community that this change would be overly burdensome to implement. Staff notes further that the bill delays implementation of this change by six months to July 1, 2014, giving banks and financial institutions extra time to adjust their reporting procedures in accordance with the new threshold. The second provision in this bill - that a service charge of up to $2 can only be assessed if the property is worth more than $2 - will also further the objectives of the UPL by helping to ensure that unclaimed property is not extinguished due to the levying of service charges. 3. Prior opposition AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 6 of ? Staff notes that this bill, as introduced, would have required banks and financial organizations to send due diligence letters with respect to unclaimed property valued at less than $50. This departure from existing law arguably would have helped more owners locate and claim their property, thus furthering the objective of the UPL, but it would have come at an additional cost to the entities required to send these notices. AB 212 was amended to remove this requirement and, as amended, the bill reverts to existing law concerning due diligence letters, which requires that they only be sent to the apparent owner of unclaimed property valued at fifty dollars ($50) or more. Following this amendment, those banks and financial institutions that were opposed to the bill removed their opposition. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California State Controller Related Pending Legislation : AB 1275 (Chau) would revise the Unclaimed Property Law to only allow an owner of, instead of a person with an interest in, property to file a claim with the State Controller's Office for recovery of property that has escheated to the state. This bill would also revise the definition of "owner" to remove a personal representative and include an estate representative, conservator, or guardian. This bill is currently on the Senate Floor. AB 1011 (Salas) would require the Controller to add interest, at specified rates, to the amount of any claim paid by the Controller to an owner under the Unclaimed Property Law. This bill is currently in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Prior Legislation : AB 2117 (Niello, 2010) would have eliminated the regular transfer of unclaimed property funds from the Abandoned Property Fund to the General Fund, would have required the Controller to add an interest payment to any claim for unclaimed property that AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 7 of ? the Controller pays to an owner, and would have extended the escheatment period for most types of unclaimed property from three years to five years. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. AB 1291 (Niello, Ch. 522, Stats. 2009) made various reforms to the Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) to strengthen property owners' rights and ensure that property holders reasonably inform customers about risks associated with leaving accounts dormant and the potential for escheatment of property after a period of inactivity. SB 1319 (Machado, 2008) would have relieved a holder of escheated property of liability if the holder complied with notification requirements, would have increased civil penalties for non-compliance with the UPL, and would have revised notification requirements for holders of unclaimed property. This bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 378 (Steinberg, Ch. 304, Stats. 2003) reduced the escheatment period from five years to three years for bank checks and deposit accounts, and from three years to one year for wages and salaries. AB 1772 (Harman, Ch. 813, Stats. 2002) prescribed the notice and information that a bank or financial institution must give to owners of financial accounts that are about to escheat to the state, and required the same notice by other holders of tangible and intangible property subject to the UPL. SB 673 (Speier, 2001) would have provided for notices to be sent by mail from the Controller to apparent owners of unclaimed property, and for the Controller to take further steps, including searches of other governmental records and outreach to the general public, to alert owners that their unclaimed property had escheated to the state. This bill was held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2) Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5) Assembly Floor (Ayes 54, Noes 22) ************** AB 212 (Lowenthal) Page 8 of ?