Customer A is the sole owner on a dormant account. Customer A also is a co-owner on a joint account that has activity — but the activity is from Customer B, the other co-owner, not Customer A. Is Customer B’s activity an indicator of interest for Customer A’s dormant account? Does it matter if Customer A is the primary tax reporting owner of the joint account?

No, we do not believe that Customer B’s activity on the joint account should be treated as activity on Customer A’s dormant account.

Under the Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Illinois RUUPA), an inactive deposit account is considered active if “any other accounts” sharing the same mailing address have qualifying activities “directed by an apparent owner,” such as increasing or decreasing the account funds or communicating with your bank.

In this situation, Customer B is directing activities for the joint account, but Customer A, who is the owner of the dormant account, has not directed any activities on either account. Without any activities on the joint account that are “directed by an apparent owner” of the dormant account (i.e., Customer A), we do not recommend treating the dormant account as active.

Also, we do not think that the fact that Customer A is the primary tax reporting owner on the joint account would affect this analysis.

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 1026/15-210(b) (“Under this Act, an indication of an apparent owner's interest in property includes:

(1) a record communicated by the apparent owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held;

(2) an oral communication by the apparent owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held, if the holder or its agent contemporaneously makes and preserves a record of the fact of the apparent owner's communication;

(3) presentment of a check or other instrument of payment of a dividend, interest payment, or other distribution, or evidence of receipt of a distribution made by electronic or similar means, with respect to an account, underlying security, or interest in a business association;

(4) activity directed by an apparent owner in the account in which the property is held, including accessing the account or information concerning the account, or a direction by the apparent owner to increase, decrease, or otherwise change the amount or type of property held in the account;

(5) a deposit into or withdrawal from an account at a financial organization, except for a recurring Automated Clearing House (ACH) debit or credit previously authorized by the apparent owner or an automatic reinvestment of dividends or interest; and

(6) subject to subsection (e), payment of a premium on an insurance policy.”)