Are states skimping on notice before seizing unclaimed property? Thomas and Alito raise issue
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas indicated on Monday that they may be willing to accept a case challenging the way states give notice before seizing unclaimed property.
Alito concurred in the denial of certiorari in a California case raising the issue, citing its “convoluted history.” But his concurrence, joined by Thomas, said the constitutionality of current state escheat laws may merit review in a future case.
“In recent years,” Alito wrote, “states have shortened the periods during which property must lie dormant before being labeled abandoned and subject to seizure.” States such as New York, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, and Arizona have shortened the dormancy periods from as long as 15 years to merely three years, he said.
At the same time, some states “still rely on decidedly old-fashioned methods” of notice such as blanket newspaper notification.
“This trend—combining shortened escheat periods with minimal notification procedures—raises important due process concerns,” Alito said. “As advances in technology make it easier and easier to identify and locate property owners, many states appear to be doing less and less to meet their constitutional obligation to provide adequate notice before escheating private property.”
The case is Taylor v. Yee.
Hat tip to How Appealing.
