IBA Compliance Connection

Your go to source for compliance!

As a hypothetical, say we have two accounts sharing the same mailing address — Account 1 and Account 2. Account 1 has just one owner, individual A. Account 2 has two owners, individuals A and B. Under the new Illinois unclaimed property law, if Account 2 is active due to individual B’s activities, does that count as activity on Account 1, even though individual B has no ownership interest in that account? Also, what if individual B has an active deposit account and is the beneficiary of a revocable trust account (in other words, he is not the legal owner of the trust account) that is using the same social security number and mailing address as the individual deposit account?

—

by

admin

As to your first question, we do not believe that activities by a non-owner of Account 1 could cause that account to be considered active. As to your second question, activities by the beneficiary of the trust account would cause both the trust account and the beneficiary’s individual account to be considered active.

The new Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Illinois RUUPA) provides that an inactive deposit account is considered active if “any other accounts, including loan accounts” at the same financial institution have qualifying activities “directed by an apparent owner,” such as increasing or decreasing the account funds or making a loan payment. The Illinois RUUPA defines “apparent owner” as a person appearing on your books and records as the owner of an account, and it defines “owner” as any “person that has a legal, beneficial, or equitable interest in property.”

In your first hypothetical, individual B is an owner only of Account 2, not of Account 1. Consequently, we do not recommend treating individual B’s activities on Account 2 as indications of interest in Account 1.

In your second hypothetical, individual B is an owner for both the individual deposit account and the revocable trust account. As a beneficiary of the revocable trust, individual B holds an equitable interest in the trust deposit account, making individual B an apparent owner of that account. Consequently, we believe that individual B’s activities on either account would count as activities for both accounts.

For resources related to our guidance, please see:

  • Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-210(f) (“If the apparent owner has another property with the holder to which Section 201(6) applies, then activity directed by an apparent owner in any other accounts, including loan accounts, at a financial organization holding an inactive account of the apparent owner shall be an indication of interest in all such accounts if:

(A) the apparent owner engages in one or more of the following activities:

(i) the apparent owner undertakes one or more of the actions described in subsection (b) of this Section regarding any account that appears on a consolidated statement with the inactive account;

(ii) the apparent owner increases or decreases the amount of funds in any other account the apparent owner has with the financial organization; or

(iii) the apparent owner engages in any other relationship with the financial organization, including payment of any amounts due on a loan; and

(B) the foregoing apply so long as the mailing address for the apparent owner in the financial organization’s books and records is the same for both the inactive account and the active account.”)

  • Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-102(3) (“‘Apparent owner’ means a person whose name appears on the records of a holder as the owner of property held, issued, or owing by the holder.”)
  • Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-102(21) (“‘Owner’, unless the context otherwise requires, means a person that has a legal, beneficial, or equitable interest in property subject to this Act or the person’s legal representative when acting on behalf of the owner. . . .”)