• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Tax Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Contacts

Minnesota Supreme Court Requires Payment of Interest to Owner of Unclaimed Property

March 15, 2018 By Andrew Yates

On March 7, 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in Hall v. Minnesota, No. A16-0874, requiring the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce to pay interest on proceeds from an interest-bearing account while the proceeds were in the custody of the state.

Four owners requested the return of their unclaimed property in custody of the state, and the state complied.  After receiving their property, the owners sued the state claiming that the state’s refusal to pay interest was prohibited under the Takings Clause of the federal Constitution. Minnesota statutes provide that the Commissioner of Commerce will not pay interest on unclaimed property held in the state’s custody.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state’s failure to pay interest to one of the plaintiffs–Mary Wingfield–violated the Takings Clause. In Ms. Wingfield’s case, the state had taken custody of the balance of her interest-bearing bank account. The court held that “[t]he right to earn interest was part of Wingfield’s unclaimed property, and she therefore has the right to receive that interest from the State if she is to be made whole.” Hall, slip. op. at 16.

The court provided no relief for the other three plaintiffs, none of whom recovered property that would have borne interest had it remained in the owner’s custody. To require the state to pay interest in these cases “would reward [the owner’s] inattention and provide an inappropriate windfall.” Id. at 13.

The court also held that the notice requirements in Minnesota’s Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, perhaps even the Act itself, provide sufficient notice to owners under the federal Due Process Clause that the state has taken custody of their property.

The decision in Hall is the most recent contribution to an ongoing dispute among owners, holders, and states over whether unclaimed property administrators must pay interest on property in their possession. State appellate courts and federal courts of appeal have come to differing conclusions on this question.

Filed Under: Unclaimed Property Advisory

About Andrew Yates

Andrew Yates is an associate in the firm’s State & Local Tax Group. He focuses his practice on advising clients on state and local tax and regulation matters, as well as unclaimed property issues.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

As a service of Alston & Bird’s Tax groups, this blog focuses on current issues and events in international, federal, state and local tax and wealth planning of interest to business.

Subscribe

Receive email notifications when new posts are added.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

401(k) ACA Affordable Care Act audit BEAT CARES Act CFC Corporate Tax Planning covid-19 Delaware ERISA Escheat FATCA FDII Gift cards GILTI international tax IRA IRAs IRS Kelmar New York nexus OECD qualified plans Quill RUUPA SCOTUS Section 351 Section 355 Section 367 Section 385 section 482 section 965 State legislation Subpart F Supreme Court Tax Court Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax reform TCJA Treasury Unclaimed property UP Wayfair

Secondary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Litigate, Legislate and Repeat: The Delaware Escheat Law Spin Cycle
  • Looking Back at Georgia’s 2022 Legislative Session
  • Diving into IRS’s Annual Report on Advance Pricing Agreements: Can APMA Overcome Its Sisyphean Task?
  • California Dreaming of a Voluntary Compliance Program
  • Testing for COVID and Your Kits for Free: Expanded Coverage of OTC COVID-19 Test Kits and Developments in Preventive Care

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.