O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-12-194 (2019)

Conditions under which intangible property subject to custody of state as unclaimed property

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless otherwise provided in this article or by any other provision of law, intangible property is subject to the custody of this state as unclaimed property if the conditions leading to a presumption of abandonment as described in Code Section 44-12-193 are satisfied and: (1) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner is in this state; (2) The records of the holder do not reflect the identity of the person entitled to the property and it is established that the last known address of the person entitled to the property is in this state; (3) The records of the holder do not reflect the last known address of the apparent owner, and it is established that: (A) The last known address of the person entitled to the property is in this state; or (B) The holder is a domiciliary or a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state and has not previously paid the property to the state of the last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property; (4) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property is in a state that does not provide by law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property and the holder is a domiciliary or a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state; (5) The last known address, as shown on the records of the holder, of the apparent owner is in a foreign nation and the holder is a domiciliary or a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state; or (6) The transaction out of which the property arose occurred in this state and: (A) The last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property is unknown; or (B) The last known address of the apparent owner or other person entitled to the property is in a state that does not provide by

law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property; and (C) The holder is a domiciliary of a state that does not provide by law for the escheat or custodial taking of the property or its escheat or unclaimed property law is not applicable to the property.

History

Code 1981, § 44-12-194, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1506, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No presumption of abandonment. - Assessment of dormancy fees on gift cards and certificates and refusal to honor them after one year did not violate O.C.G.A. § 44-12-205 of the Georgia Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (DUPA), O.C.G.A. § 44-12-190 et seq; as the cards and certificates had not been

unclaimed by the plaintiffs for more than five years when the complaint was filed, they were not presumed abandoned, and DUPA did not apply. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. v. Benson, 278 Ga. App. 277, 628 S.E.2d 697, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (2006), aff’d, 281 Ga. 744, 642 S.E.2d 687, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 238 (2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2007 · leading case: Simon Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Benson, 628 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simon Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Benson, 628 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “” 16 Under the DUPA, “intangible property” includes: “Credit balances, customer overpayments, gift certificates, security deposits, refunds, credit memos, unpaid wages, and unidentified remittances.”

Benson v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 4× “OCGA §§ 44-12-194, 44-12-205 (a). The purpose of the DUPA is not to expand the substantive rights of owners.”

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.