Escheat in Texas: A Current Look at the Intangible Issue

SMU Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 2 Article 4 1975 Escheat in Texas: A Current Look at the Intangible Issue Billy F. Hicks Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Billy F. Hicks, Escheat in Texas: A Current Look at the Intangible Issue, 29 Sw L.J. 575 (1975) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol29/iss2/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COMMENTS ESCHEAT IN TEXAS: A CURRENT LOOK AT THE INTANGIBLE ISSUE by Billy F. Hicks The doctrine of escheat in modem American jurisidictions has evolved from several feudal concepts which dealt separately with real and personal property. The states, realizing the economic sensibility behind appropriation of unclaimed property, have generally ignored historical concepts in their efforts to adopt effective escheat procedures. As lawmakers struggle to balance governmental budgets swelled by inflation, public policy favors a method which allows the state to use abandoned property rather than tax dollars drawn from a recession-angered public. 'In 1963, fifteen billion dollars in abandoned property was estimated to exist in the United States, increasing at the rate of an additional billion dollars per year.' The race to appropriate this resource has led to conflicting state claims, and the establishment of constitutional guidelines. Texas has provided for the escheat of abandoned property since 1848,2 but only since 1961 has the state required holders of abandoned property to report the existence of such property to the state under threat of civil and criminal liability for the failure to report.3 These escheat provisions make Texas one of the most active states in the appropriation of abandoned property. The Texas Supreme Court has construed the Texas escheat statutes to allow escheat to the limits of the restrictions imposed by the due process requirements of -the Federal Constitution. 4 The purpose of this Comment is to determine the state of the doctrine of escheat in Texas through an historical evaluation of the rationales of the doctrine, examination of the Texas statute in comparison with the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, and an analysis of past and present judicial pronouncements regarding constitutional limitations on a state's power to escheat. 1. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ESCHEAT An escheat in modem law is the right of the state to absorb estates left vacant by the death of owners dying without a will or lawful heirs. 5 Escheat, as a feudal term, applied only to real property which passed to the overlord following the death of the owner intestate without heirs. 6 Before the 1. Lake, Escheat, Federalism and State Boundaries, 24 Omo ST. L.J. 322, 323 (1963) (citing Wall Street Journal, Jan. 22, 1962, at 1, col. 1. 2. Ch. 145, [1848] Tex. Laws, 3 H. GAMMEL, LAWS OF TEXAs 210 (1898). Several articles in the current Texas escheat statute have not been amended since their enactment in 1848. See, e.g., TEx. REv. Civ. STAT. ANN. art. 3276 (1968). 3. TEx. REv. Civ. STAT. ANN.art. 3272a, § 13 (1968). 4. State v. Liquidating Trustees of Republic Petro. Co., 510 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. 1974). 5. See, e.g., 7 R. POWELL, THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY I 987-90 (rev. ed. 1974); 5 0. THOMPSON, COMMENTARIES ON THE MODERN LAW OF REAL PROPERTY §§ 2510-16 (repl. ed. 1957). 6. Hardman, The Law of Escheat, 4 L.Q. REV. 318, 323 (1888). As the system of tenures declined, the Crown was commonly the immediate overlord in England, and thus 575 SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 29 nineteenth century a felon's lands escheated to the lord and his heirs were disinherited.7 Today, forfeitures to the state are rare and generally restricted 8 by statute. The doctrine of escheat was founded on the system of English tenures by which the English Crown was treated as the ultimate owner of all lands within the realm.9 Following the American Revolution, the states were declared the successors of the Crown for purposes of escheat.' Ownerless personal property passed directly to the Crown under the doctrine of bona vacantia." The various processes have merged in modern times into a generalized concept of "escheat," although the property subject to escheat and the circumstances giving rise to an escheat still vary greatly among the 2 states.1 The historical origins of the doctrine have rarely been considered by Texas courts; indeed, Texas courts have strengthened the generalized concept of the doctrine by a refusal to consider historical limitations.'1 No statutory or constitutional definitions have limited -the potential breadth of the doctrine in Texas. The Texas Constitution merely vests the legislature with authority to effect escheats,' 4 and statutes consistently refer to "property subject to escheat."' 5 States justify escheat on several grounds. The fundamental principle seems to be that if the ownership of property becomes vacant, the right vests in the it is often erroneously thought that an escheat was always to the Crown. In America, where the system of tenures never flourished, the state as successor to the Crown almost always stood as immediate overlord. The American states did not long depend upon their common law heritage for a law of escheat, but began adopting statutes. The statutes were generally applicable to real and personal property and their wording contributed to the present connotation of the word "escheat." For an excellent exposition of the effect of the English law of tenures in America see 1 AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 1.41 (A. Casner ed. 1952). 7. 1 H. TIFFANY, THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY § 12 (3d ed. 1939). 8. Most state statutes prohibit the forfeiture of a felon's property to the state. 5 G. THOMPSON, COMMENTARIES ON THE MODERN LAW OF REAL PROPERTY § 2510 (repl. ed. 1957). The Texas statute makes no provision for forfeiture for felony, but the United States Constitution prohibits any forfeiture of property except for treason and then only during ,the traitor's lifetime. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 3. A forfeiture could also arise at common law upon a death intestate when the only heirs were not allowed to succeed to ownership. The Texas Supreme Court aptly defined the concept: "The right to a forfeiture arises when there are heirs who can and do take, if they fail to comply with the conditions imposed by law to enable them to obtain an indefeasible estate." Wiederanders v. State, 64 Tex. 133, 141 (1885). Texas formerly provided for this type of forfeiture when the only heirs were aliens, but this restriction was repealed in 1965. Act of April 1,1921, ch. 134, [1921] Tex. Laws Regular Sess. 261 (repealed 1965). For a recent decision on the validity of such statutes under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution see Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. (...truncated)