If we are merging an Alabama Bank with a Florida Bank within our Holding Company and the Florida Bank will be the surviving Charter, how will this affect escheatment? Specifically, Florida states 5 years on its disclosure and Alabama states 3 years. We need to know so we can update the parameters in our shared computer system.

We are in 4 states. We follow the escheat laws for each individual state. Unfortunately, they do vary so we have our Information Systems department run special reports for us. You may want to check with an organization such as the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA).

My understanding is that the law that applies is the law of the state in which the owner of the funds resides. That jibes with Steve's comments.

Does the mean that if we have an out-of-state depositor, then we need to follow that state's escheatment laws? We have been following the rules for the state of the branch in which the account was opened.

Not necessarily where the account opened, but where the customer would reside. This is where states begin to argue as was the case with Howard Hughes, as one big example. Call it state greed. This is why I am not sure there is an easy answer. In your case, if there was a big enough pot and the consumer resided in one state and the bank is chartered in another, the two may well go at it. You would be in the middle.

A few years back, we had the administrator for the unclaimed property (for MD) to give a discussion about escheatment, etc. Yes, this was news to a lot of people. Where the owner of the property/funds resides is the controlling law.

If you go across state lines (or even if you don't), be aware that states may go for years without being aggressive about escheatment, then suddenly it may become a “hot” issue for that state (and you’re caught in the crosshairs).

I want to make sure I understand what has been presented above…..
We are an SC bank. We have a customer that lives in Alaska. The customer appears to have abandoned the account. Do we have to follow Alaska’s escheat laws from dormancy to actual escheatment? OR, would we follow SC’s escheat laws, but instead of remitting the funds to SC, we remit the funds to Alaska?

How are accounts established by alien customers impacted by these escheat rules?

Just for some clarification-
(1) what state rules apply in the following senario: PA bank holding a dormant NJ account, for the sake of argument, assume the dormancy periods are different, whose timeframe wins: NJ or PA?