BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2258 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 2258 (Eggman) - As Amended March 16, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill clarifies that transactions made through electronic fund transfers (EFTs) shall constitute activity on an account for the purpose of determining whether the state's unclaimed property law requires escheat of the funds after a specified period of inactivity. FISCAL EFFECT: Minor administrative cost savings to the State Controller's Office (SCO), which administers the state's Unclaimed Property AB 2258 Page 2 Program. COMMENTS: 1)Background. Under the state's unclaimed property law, financial institutions are required to notify the SC) when there is no "live" activity between an account owner and his or her account for three years, and the financial institution is unable to contact the owner of the account. Thereafter, the SCO must notify the account holder that the account will be turned over (escheated) to the state if it remains unclaimed. For many years, the financial industry has interpreted "activity" to constitute some sort of human or "live" contact by the account holder (i.e. going into the bank to make a deposit/withdrawal, writing a check, etc.) Today, many account holders deposit or withdraw money from their financial institutions via an EFT, and thus do not go into bank branches. The financial industry considers such transactions as a passive activity and does not consider this dispositive evidence that the account remains active. Therefore, these active/"live" accounts are erroneously considered dormant and trigger escheatment notices, which then require the account holder to affirmatively confirm that the account is truly active. 2)Purpose. The SCO, sponsor of this bill, contends that as a result of financial institutions not acknowledging EBT transfers as account activity, thousands of people who have active accounts are unnecessarily sent letters each year warning that failure to contact the financial institution will result in escheatment of funds to the SCO. Accordingly, AB 2258 seeks to harmonize industry practices with the law by specifying that transactions involving electronic fund transfers, both one-time or recurring, shall be considered activity for the purpose of determining whether there has been a period of inactivity on an account. There is no known AB 2258 Page 3 opposition to this bill. Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081