Opinion ID: 1399075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: confidentiality of the records

Text: In Lincoln Bank and Trust Company v. Oklahoma Tax Commission [29] we held financial information obtained from a bank in the course of enforcing the Unclaimed Property Act is not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Open Records Act. [30] This is so because the Financial Privacy Act [31] clothes a bank customer's records with a privacy interest [32] and the Open Record Act excepts records specifically required by law to be kept confidential. [33] Lincoln's teaching provides us with but a partial solution of this case because Merrill seeks not only bank records collected by the Commission but those of insurance companies, oil and gas companies, [34] county clerks and other classes of holder. In Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Okl. Horse Racing Com'n [35] we recognized that an affected agency has authority to make the initial determination whether its records are exempt from the Open Records Act. [36] That agency decision may, of course, be reviewed by the district court in a suit for injunctive and/or declaratory relief. [37] Although both the agency and the reviewing court must consider the Open Records Act's intention to favor disclosure of information over its withholding, [38] if the release of information in a public body's custody would invade an individual's privacy [39] or damage an affected party's commercial interests, the Section 24A.5(1)a. exemption would apply. [40] The Commission determined that except for the Income Tax Filers Index and the Unclaimed Property Division's Desk List, the documents sought by Merrill contain financial information about individuals and holders that may not be released. [41] The district court agreed with this position. Because when the trial court considered Merrill's suit for declaratory and injunctive relief it was sitting in equity, the standard of review applicable to the ruling is whether it is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. [42] While in a chancery case an appellate court may weigh the evidence, it will neither disturb the trial court's findings nor its decree unless the chancellor's decision fails to pass muster under this well-known standard of review. [43] Absent the standard's breach, the appellate court must indulge in the presumption that the decree is correct. [44] Our review of the record yields ample proof in support of the nisi prius decision. A witness testified that the Commission considers confidential social security numbers, holders' federal identification numbers, and the names of estate administrators and heirs. It withholds from the public lease owner as well as other financial records, including bank account numbers. Since audits are frequently protested, the release, during a contest, of even an owner's name and address could create problems. According to a Commission witness, approximately one hundred ten items of information about either the holder or owner of unclaimed property are part of the Commission's new data base. In sum, the evidence establishes privacy claims and concerns that compel confidentiality under the Tulsa Tribune guidelines. This is so because the reports contain individual financial information of the type that would ordinarily be subject to a court's protective order because it has the potential to harm unclaimed property reporters' commercial interests. Merrill presented nothing that would outweigh these privacy considerations. [45] If Merrill's request had come seventeen months later, the records he now seeks would undoubtedly be deemed confidential by statutory command. The Commission satisfactorily met its burden of showing that all unclaimed property records not statutorily required to be made public are exempt from the purview of the Open Records Act.