Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1965 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Jesse James                Opinion No. C-475
    State Treasurer of Texas
    Drawer X, Capitol Station            Re: Whether personal property
    Austin, Texas 78711                      held in Texas by foreign
    corporationsfor persons
    whose last known address
    Is outslde Texas or is
    unknown are required to
    be reported to the State
    Treasurer under Article
    3272a; and whether unclaimed
    wages must be reported
    Dear Mr. James:                          pursuant to such statute?
    Your recent letter requesting the opinion of thls office
    reads as follows:
    "As you know, the United States Supreme Court
    has held in the case of the State of Texas vs. State
    of New Jersey, Et Al, 379 U.3. 674 (1965) that the
    debts owed by a corporation are subject t; escheat
    only by the State of the last known address of the
    creditor as shown by the debtor's books and records,
    or if there is no address at all, or If the last
    known address Is In a state which does not provide
    for escheat of the property owed them, then the debts
    owed by the corporation are subject to escheat by the
    State of corporate domicile subject to the right of        -
    the State of last known address to recover, if and
    when Its laws make provision for the escheat of such
    property.
    "Also, the Supreme Court of Texas, In the case
    of Southern Pacific Transport Company, Et Al v. State,
    
    380 S.W.2d 123
    (Tex.Clv.App.1964 error refused),
    has held that the holder of unclaimed wages may
    plead that the two and four year statutes of
    limitation have barred the actions of the persons
    to whom the wages are owed and thereby defeat an
    action by the State to escheat such wages.
    -2250-
    Hon. Jesse James, page 2 (c-475)
    "In view of these two recent decisions, It will
    be appreciated If you will advise this office by
    official opinion upon the following questions:
    1. Whether It Is necessary for a
    corporation chartered In a state
    other than Texas to report to the
    State Treasurer pursuant to Article
    3272a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, personal
    property held In Texas for persons whose
    last known address, according to the
    books and records of the corporation,
    Is outside the State of Texas or whose
    address Is unknown?
    2.   Whether It Is necessary for unclaimed
    wages to be reported to the State
    Treasurer pursuant to Article 3272a,
    Vernon's Civil Statutes?"
    You are hereby advised that in our opinion both of your
    questions must be answered In the affirmative.
    Article 3272a of Vernon's Civil Statutes requires that
    certain personal property specified therein be reported to
    the State Treasurer of Texas. ~Sectlonl(b) of such Article
    defines the term "personal property" and reads as follows:
    "The term 'personalproperty' Includes, but
    Is not limited to, money, stocks, bonds and
    other securities, bills of exchange claims for
    money or Indebtedness and other written evidences
    of Indebtedness,dividends, deposits, accrued
    Interest, purchase payments,~sumspayable on
    certified checks, certificates of membership In
    a corporation or association, amounts due and
    payable under the terms of any insurance policy
    security deposits, unclaimed refunds and deposi&
    for utility or other services, funds to redeem
    stocks and bonds, undistributed profits, dividends,
    or other Interests, production and proceeds from
    011, gas and other mineral estates, and all other
    oersonal orooertv and Increments thereto. whether
    tangible br intangible and whether held'wlthln
    this State, or wlthout'the State for a person
    or beneficiarywhose last known residence was
    In this State:," (Emphasis added)
    Hon. Jesse James, page 3 (C-475)
    The above emphasized language of the statutes has been
    before us for Interpretationon a previous occasion. We then
    held that such language required that reports of property
    subject to escheat include all personal property held In Texas,
    regardless of the last known address of the person for whom
    such property Is held. Attorney General's Opinion ~~-1180 (1961).
    This would, of course, Include those situations where the name
    or address of the person entitled to such property Is unknown.
    Attorney General's Opinion w-1189 (1961).
    We have also previously held that Article 3272a requires
    the reporting of personal property In the form of an Indebtedness
    against which the statutes of llmltatlon may have run. Attorney
    General's Opinion ~~-1232 (1962). Unclaimed wages necessarily
    fall within the scope of this previous holding.
    We perceive no reason to abandon our prior holdings In this
    regard, or the reasoning In support thereof, unless we are In
    some way so compelled by the decisions in Texas v. New Jersey,
    
    379 U.S. 674
    , 
    85 S. Ct. 626
    , 
    13 L. Ed. 2d 596
    (1965) and Southern
    Pacific Transport Co. v. State, 
    380 S.W.2d 123
    (Tex.Clv.App.1964,
    error refused).
    In Texas v. New 
    Jersey supra
    , the question for determination
    was not whether the escheat'laws of the various states Involved
    encompassed the property In question, but rather which of the
    states having escheat statutes which applied to the property In
    question were entitled to escheat. The solution to the contro-
    versy was not determined by the validity or Invalidity of any
    procedural or substantive requirement of the escheat statutes
    of the various states involved. The Court made this clear when
    it stated at 
    85 S. Ct. 631
    :
    "We realize that this case could have been
    resolved otherwise, for the Issue here Is not
    controlled by statutory or constitutional provisions
    or by past decisions, nor is It entirely one of logic.
    It Is fundamentallya question of ease of admlnlstra-
    tlon and of equity. We believe that the rule we adopt
    is the fairest, Is easy to apply and In the long run
    will be the most generally acceptable to all the
    States."
    The rule laid down by the Court merely establisheda ranking
    or priority of right to escheat under the facts presented by the
    record.
    -2252-
    :
    -_
    Hon. Jesse James, page 4 (C-475)
    In the Southern Pacific Transport Co. case the Court held
    that In a suit to escheat unclaimed wages, a plea by the holder
    that the claims of the wage earners were barred by the two and
    four year statutes of llmltatlon,would preclude the escheat of [
    such wages in the absence of a showing by the State that facts i
    existed which avoided the plea of limitations.
    After a study of all of the provlslons of Article 3272a we   1
    cannot conceive that anyone could contend that the reporting of
    property required by the statute Is tantamount to taking such
    property under the statute. If a holder of property reported      I
    1
    under Article 3272a should feel that the state Is not entitled    j
    to take such property, then he may refuse to deliver such pro-    i
    perty to the State Treasurer and await the Institution of a
    suit under Section 4(d) of Article 3272a to compel delivery of    j
    such property. In such proceeding the holder may raise such       i
    defenses as he may think are available to him and the state
    will have the opportunityto introduce any evidence which Is
    available to avoid such defensive pleas.
    The Legislature has met twice since Attorney General's
    Opinions ~~-1180, W-1189 and WW-1232 were rendered. The 59th
    Legislature was In session on January 27, 1965, when the Supreme
    Court of Texas entered Its order refusing a Writ of Error In
    Southern Pacific Transport Co. v. State and on February 1, 1965,
    when the Unlted States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in
    Texas v. New Jersey. They are presumed to have known of these
    court decisions and the constructionaccorded the reporting
    provisions of Article 3272a by the opinions of this office. 39
    Tex.Jur. 248-250, Statutes, B 132, and cases there cited. The
    59th Legislature In fact amended Article 3272a on May 26, 1965,
    without changing the language interpreted by this office In
    ~~-3.180,W-1189 and WW-1232, and without Indicating that our
    interpretationwas In error. In view of these circumstances,
    It must be presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in such
    Interpretationand for us to now hold that the reporting of
    the personal property Inquired about in your letter Is unneces-
    sary would be an unconstitutionalusurpation of the legislative
    prerogative. Section I of Article II of the Texas Constitution.
    SUMMARY
    Personal property held in Texas by foreign
    corporations for persons whose last known address,
    according to the books and records of the corpora-
    tions, Is outside Texas or whose address Is unknown
    -225X-
    Hon. Jesse James, page 5 (C-475)
    must be reported to the State Treasurer under Article
    3272a; unclaimed wages must be reported to the State
    ,
    such personal property.
    Very truly yours,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    Gordon Cass
    Ben Harrison
    Pat Bailey
    Gordon Zuber
    APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: Hawthorne Phillips
    -2254-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-475

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1965

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017