State of California ex rel. Ken Elder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

I. BACKGROUND

5 A. Escheatment and Federal Priority Rules 6 States have the sovereign power to escheat abandoned property. Delaware v. New York, 7 507 U.S. 490, 502 (1993). However, a state’s power to escheat is generally limited to property 8 located in that state. Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 677 (1965). When states seek to escheat 9 intangible property, such as money owing on a loan or instrument, the property-holder is in danger 10 of being subject to conflicting escheatment obligations from different states. W. U. Tel. Co. v. 11 Com. of Pa., by Gottlieb, 368 U.S. 71, 75 (1961). To protect property-holders, the W. U. Tel. 12 Court held that property-holders have a due process right not to be subject to conflicting 13 escheatment obligations. Id. Four years later, in a case heard under the Supreme Court’s original 14 jurisdiction, the Court announced priority rules dictating which state has the power to escheat what 15 intangible property. Texas, 379 U.S. at 677. Using the terms “creditor” and “debtor” to refer to 16 the party owed and the party holding unclaimed funds, the Court ruled that the state of the 17 creditor’s last known address, as shown by the…