Opinion ID: 1799508
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: How did the Treasurer for the State of Mississippi Succeed to the Owners' and Payees' Claims to the Disputed Funds?

Text: There is no dispute between the parties as to this question; nevertheless, it is important to note how the State derives its interests. The State Treasurer agrees and the Companies concur that the Treasurer acquires his rights by and through the owners of the abandoned property. This conclusion is based on the custodial nature of the Uniform Act under which the courts have consistently held that the rights of the State are indeed derivative from the rights of the owners of abandoned property, e.g., State of Washington, Department of Revenue v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 103 Wash.2d 501, 694 P.2d 7 (1985); Insurance Co. of N. America v. Knight, 8 Ill. App.3d 871, 291 N.E.2d 40 (1972). The Supreme Court of Utah addressed the matter in Baker v. Intermountain Farmers Association, 668 P.2d 503 (Utah 1983), as follows: It is well settled from the custodial nature of the Unclaimed Property Act that the rights of the state are merely derivative from the rights of the owners of the abandoned property. (Citations omitted). [T]he state has no greater right than that of the payee owner. (Citation omitted). Consistent with our statutory duty to construe the Act so as to effectuate its general purpose and to make uniform the law of those states which enact it, § 78-44-27, we reaffirm that construction... . Id. at 507. Even though both parties are in agreement as to how the Treasurer derives his interest, there is disagreement as to the effect. The Companies contend that as the chancellor correctly found, the rights of the State, through the Treasurer, to require the reporting and payment of abandoned property are no greater than the rights of the owners and payees of the abandoned property. Consequently, when the owners' and payees' rights became time-barred (six years prior to July 1, 1982), then the State's rights as successor to the owners/payees also became time-barred. The Treasurer, on the other hand, insists that because the State has succeeded to the owners' and payees' interest, then Article IV, § 104 of the Mississippi Constitution dictates that statutes of limitation in civil causes shall not run against the State, ... As a result, this constitutional language, coupled with the Treasurer's retroactive intent interpretation of § 89-12-35, is the authority from which the Treasurer would have this Court persuaded that the State has a valid claim to the disputed funds. The Companies refute the Treasurer's constitutional claim, in short, by citing Article IV, § 97, of the Mississippi Constitution, which reads in full: The Legislature shall have no power to revive any remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time, or by any statute of limitation of this state. By giving § 89-12-35 a retroactive effect, the Companies argue this violates Art. IV, § 97.