In general, we believe that the apparent owner’s last-known address will determine which state’s law applies to unclaimed property.

The Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Illinois RUUPA) establishes several rules to determine which state has priority to take custody of unclaimed property. The first priority is given to the state of the apparent owner’s last-known address in the holder’s records. Consequently, in most situations it will be clear from the property owner’s last-known address in your bank’s records whether Illinois or another state’s law applies. (Note that this would be the case whether or not your bank had established an out-of-state branch.)

Also note that the question of which state’s law applies becomes more complicated if you do not have a last-known address for the owner — for example, if you have multiple addresses or your records indicate that the address is temporary. In those situations, the owner’s domicile or even the location of the transaction may determine which state’s law applies to the unclaimed property. The Illinois RUUPA incorporates priority rules (based on U.S. Supreme Court case law) to address most of these situations, and we have included those rules in the resources below.

Fortunately, the Illinois RUUPA provides some protection for your bank if you report unclaimed property to the Illinois Treasurer. If you report property to the Illinois Treasurer in good faith, after complying with the due diligence requirements for notices to the property owner, the Illinois RUUPA provides that you are “relieved of all liability which thereafter may arise or be made in respect to the property,” and the Illinois Treasurer is required to reimburse you under certain circumstances if you are sued by another state.

For resources related to our guidance, please see:

• Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-302 (“The administrator may take custody of property that is presumed abandoned, whether located in this State, another state, or a foreign country if:

(1) the last-known address of the apparent owner in the records of the holder is in this State; or

(2) the records of the holder do not reflect the identity or last-known address of the apparent owner, but the administrator has determined that the last-known address of the apparent owner is in this State.”)

• Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-303 (“(a) Except as in subsection (b), if records of a holder reflect multiple addresses for an apparent owner and this State is the state of the most recently recorded address, this State may take custody of property presumed abandoned, whether located in this State or another state.

  (b) If it appears from records of the holder that the most recently recorded address of the apparent owner under subsection (a) is a temporary address and this State is the state of the next most recently recorded address that is not a temporary address, this State may take custody of the property presumed abandoned.”)
   

• Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-304(a) (“Except as in subsection (b) or Section 15-302 or 15-303, the administrator may take custody of property presumed abandoned, whether located in this State, another state, or a foreign country, if the holder is domiciled in this State or is this State or a governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of this State, and

(1) another state or foreign country is not entitled to the property because there is no last-known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property in the records of the holder; or

(2) the state or foreign country of the last-known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property does not provide for custodial taking of the property.”)

• Illinois RUUPA, 765 ILCS 1026/15-305 (“Except as in Section 15-302, 15-303, or 15-304, the administrator may take custody of property presumed abandoned whether located in this State or another state if:

(1) the transaction out of which the property arose took place in this State

(2) the holder is domiciled in a state that does not provide for the custodial taking of the property, except that if the property is specifically exempt from custodial taking under the law of the state of the holder's domicile, the property is not subject to the custody of the administrator; and

(3) the last-known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property is unknown or in a state that does not provide for the custodial taking of the property, except that if the property is specifically exempt from custodial taking under the law of the state of the last-known address, the property is not subject to the custody of the administrator.”)