Del. C. » Title 12 — Descent and Distribution; Escheat · CHAPTER 11. Escheats · Decedents’ Estates and Fiduciary Relations
Delaware Code

12 Del. C. § 1175 (2026)

Evidence of debt or undischarged obligation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A record showing an unpaid debt or undischarged obligation is prima facie evidence of an obligation. In claiming property from a holder, the State Escheator’s burden of proof as to the existence and amount of the property and its abandonment is satisfied by showing evidence of the unpaid debt or undischarged obligation and passage of the requisite period of abandonment.

(b) A holder may overcome prima facie evidence under subsection (a) of this section by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that 1 of the following occurred:

(1) A check, draft, or similar instrument was issued as an unaccepted offer in settlement of an unliquidated amount.

(2) A check, draft, or similar instrument was issued but later was replaced with another instrument because the earlier instrument was lost or contained an error that was corrected.

(3) A check, draft, or similar instrument was issued to a party affiliated with the issuer.

(4) A check, draft, or similar instrument was paid, satisfied, or discharged.

(5) A check, draft, or similar instrument was issued in error.

(6) A check, draft, or similar instrument was issued without consideration.

81 Del. Laws, c. 1, § 2; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2020–2020 · leading case: State of Delaware, Dep't of Fin. v. AT&T, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Delaware, Dep't of Fin. v. AT&T, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020). “” 12 Del. C. § 1175(a). AT&T also contends that because it is already subject to regulatory and financial oversight, this court should infer that “AT&T only voids a check because it is not owed[,] not a true liability.”
— 12 Del. C. § 1175(a) — 1 case
State of Delaware, Dep't of Fin. v. AT&T, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020). “” 12 Del. C. § 1175(a). AT&T also contends that because it is already subject to regulatory and financial oversight, this court should infer that “AT&T only voids a check because it is not owed[,] not a true liability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.