Honorable Jesse James 

State Treasurer of Texas 

Opinion No. C-475 

Drawer X, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Whether personal property 

held in Texas by foreign 

corporations for 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. ~Sectlon l(b) of such Article 

defines the term "personal property" and reads as follows: 

"The term 'personal property' 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, ~sums payable 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 beneficiary whose 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 Interpretation on 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. 

General's Opinion ~~-1232 (1962). 

Attorney 

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 controversy 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 fundamentally a question of ease of admlnlstratlon 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 established a 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 

to take such property, then he may refuse to deliver such proj 

perty to the State Treasurer and await the Institution of a 

i 

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 opportunity to 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 construction accorded 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 

interpretation was In error. In view of these circumstances, 

It must be presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in such 

Interpretation and for us to now hold that the reporting of 

the personal property Inquired about in your letter Is unnecessary would be an unconstitutional usurpation 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 corporations, 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-