Menu

KeepUP™ Blog

9/24/20 9:06 AM

The Role of Death and Dormancy for Unclaimed Property Holders

by Heather Gabell

compliance binderOrganizations (holders) are not always made aware of the death of the people they do business with. While death plays an important role in the escheatment process, holders of banking and securities property types are not required to proactively search for and confirm death. Similarly, in the securities industry, SEC 17Ad-17 searches for lost shareowners are not required if the holder has received documentation that a shareowner is deceased

Death, however, is a factor in triggering escheatment. For example, death serves as the dormancy trigger for Roth IRA accounts in most states, as a possible trigger date for individual retirement accounts, and in states like Illinois and Maine, decreases the dormancy period for “other tax deferred” accounts.  In states that have adopted certain provisions of the 2016 Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA) as they relate to retirement accounts and securities, holders are not required to confirm death unless and until they receive a notice or indication of death (with death to be confirmed within 90 days).

Often, a holder becomes aware of the death of an owner when the next of kin contacts the holder. In other cases, notice of death comes from an SEC 17Ad-17 search of an account that is RPO (Returned by Post Office). There are no statutory requirements that force holders of banking or securities property to proactively determine if owners are deceased. Auditors, however, have been taking a more aggressive approach and assert that holders must proactively bump their records against the death master file (“DMF”) database. If an account owner is found to be deceased and there has been no contact with a beneficiary, the account is considered lost, which triggers escheatment and the property becomes fair game for the auditor. The National Change of Address (NCOA) database is similarly utilized by auditors as an attempt to locate accounts with updated addresses. According to auditors, these updates serve as proof that the holder does not know the location of the account owner, which triggers escheatment for some property types, including securities.

Holders in the financial services and securities industries that are under audit should consider pushing back against auditor tactics of bumping up records against the DMF or NCOA databases without a statutory basis, just as holders similarly challenge such things as overly broad record requests.   In all cases, holders should continue to be diligent and proactive in their review of accounts and in their outreach to owners and beneficiaries to help keep escheatment – and the potential for aggressive auditor tactics – at bay.

Register for our KeepUP! blog series to have informative unclaimed property articles delivered conveniently to your email inbox.

Topics: Compliance, Reporting, Audit, Best Practices