Opinion ID: 1423926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the state statutory scheme

Text: We begin our analysis with the cardinal principle of our constitutional law that every statute is to be treated as valid until its nonconformity to fundamental law is clearly shown. [18] The reviewing court will uphold a statute unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law. [19] The primary goal of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent. [20] That intent is to be ascertained from the statute in light of its general purpose and object. [21] It is presumed that the legislature has expressed its intent in a statute and that it intended what it so expressed. [22] The statute should then be interpreted to attain that purpose and end. [23] The legislature will not be presumed to have intended an absurd result. Statutory construction that would lead to an absurdity will be avoided if this can be done without violating legislative intent. [24] A reasonable and rational construction is preferred. [25] In order to interpret the UPMA in a manner consistent with legislative intent, we must adopt the construction that would uphold its constitutionality. The UPMA clearly expresses legislative intent to regulate the disposition of unclaimed proceeds derived from forced pooled oil and gas interests where the owners cannot be located. [26] The Act must be construed to achieve this purpose. Section 556 [27] of the UPMA provides that such proceeds held for more than seven years in the UPMA Mineral Owner's Fund shall be transferred to the Unclaimed Property Fund, after which time they shall be subject to the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act [Uniform Act]. [28] In American Petrofina Co. of Texas v. Nance [29] a U.S. district court held that the Uniform Act [30] observes the Texas guidelines for determining which state could escheat or take custody of unclaimed intangible property. We agree. In 1984 the legislature amended the Uniform Act by adding §§ 658.2 through 658.8 [1984 Act]. [31] These statutes specifically deal with the custodial taking of monies owed to unknown mineral interest owners. In American Petrofina [32] the court also construed the 1984 Act, holding that it does not on its face strictly follow the Texas guidelines. Because of this conflict the court concluded that the 1984 Act is preempted by Texas 's pronouncement of federal common law. We are not persuaded by this view. In American Petrofina the court did not construe the 1984 Act in conjunction with both the UPMA and the Uniform Act. Unless legislative intent would be violated, these three acts must be construed together to effectuate the purpose of providing for the custodial taking of unclaimed intangible property in a constitutional manner. [33] When amending a statute the legislature is presumed familiar with the extant judicial construction then in force. [34] Similarly, it can be presumed that when enacting a statute the legislature is familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence affecting that enactment. The legislature's failure to include the Texas guidelines in the UPMA is not fatal to its validity. Texas was decided in 1965. Its effect on the custodial taking of intangible property was well established by 1983, when the UPMA was passed, and in 1984, when the Uniform Act was amended to include custodial taking of monies owed to unknown mineral interest owners. The legislature presumably considered Texas' impact on the statutory scheme when drafting these acts and intended to conform them to the Texas guidelines  that is, it intended to allow Oklahoma to seize unclaimed monies belonging to (a) owners of forced pooled oil and gas interests with a last known address in Oklahoma, (b) owners with no known address where the holder is domiciled [35] in Oklahoma, or (c) owners whose last known address is in a state with no custodial taking or escheat provisions and the holder's domicile is Oklahoma. Section 556 of the UPMA must be interpreted as allowing these monies to be subject to the provisions of both the Uniform Act and the 1984 Act. Measured by this construction, the federal common-law jurisprudence of Texas is not explicitly violated. Obedience can be given to its commands without contravening any norms of the state statute under construction. [36] Where there are two possible interpretations of a statute, only one of which would render the statute unconstitutional, the court should adopt the construction which upholds the statute. [37] TXO presses on us a construction of the UPMA that would render the Act unconstitutional. We adopt today a construction ensuring the Act's constitutionality. III UNCLAIMED PROCEEDS FROM FORCED POOLED MINERAL INTERESTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S CUSTODIAL TAKING LAWS UNTIL CLAIMED BY A STATE WHICH HAS A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO THE PROCEEDS Our declaration of the UPMA's constitutionality under the mandatory guidelines of Texas does not answer the ultimate question for decision here  whether the funds in controversy are subject to the State's temporary custodial reach until another state comes forward with proof that it has a prior right to custody or of escheat. In Texas the Court was not confronted with, nor did it decide, the rights to custody of abandoned property as between a private holder and a State. The Texas guidelines establish priority among multiple states attempting to escheat or take custody of the same property. They are binding only where there are multiple states with claims to the same property. Nothing in Texas prohibits a state from claiming temporary custody of unclaimed property until some other state comes forward with proof that it has a superior right to it. [38] The UPMA and Uniform Act are not escheat statutes. [39] They are custodial taking laws which make the State custodian of proceeds from forced pooled mineral interests whose owners are unknown or cannot be located, subject to the claims of those who prove ownership or a prior right to possession. [40] These proceeds are ultimately placed in the Unclaimed Property Fund in the state treasury in trust for the rightful owner. By taking temporary custody of the unclaimed proceeds from a private holder, Oklahoma does not divest any state with a constitutional priority claim of custody or title to the funds. The public policy supporting custodial taking by a State is superior to any claim that a private holder may assert to any unclaimed proceeds. Under today's construction proceeds from forced pooled mineral interests are brought into the custody of the State Treasurer where mechanisms are available through the Uniform Act (a) for locating the rightful owners [41] and allowing them to assert their claim administratively [42] as well as in our courts, [43] and (b) for exchanging information with other states needed to enable another state to audit or otherwise determine the unclaimed proceeds which it may be entitled to subject to a claim of custody. [44]