Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-29-111 (2024)
Presumption of abandonment of security
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 66-29-113, a security is presumed abandoned three (3) years after:
- (1) The date a second consecutive communication sent by the holder by first-class United States mail to the apparent owner is returned to the holder undelivered by the United States postal service; or
- (2) If the second communication is made later than thirty (30) days after the first communication is returned, the date the first communication is returned undelivered to the holder by the United States postal service.
- (b) If the apparent owner of a security does not receive communications from the holder by first-class United States mail, the holder shall attempt to confirm the apparent owner's interest in the security by sending the apparent owner an electronic mail communication not later than two (2) years after the apparent owner's indication of interest in the security. If the holder receives notification that the electronic mail communication was not received, or if the apparent owner does not respond to the electronic mail communication within thirty (30) days after the communication was sent, the holder shall promptly attempt to contact the apparent owner by first-class United States mail. If the mail is returned to the holder undelivered by the United States postal service, the security is presumed abandoned three (3) years after the date the mail is returned.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 457,s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.
Acts 1978, ch. 561, § 10; T.C.A., §§ 64-2910, 66-29-110; Acts 1984, ch. 544, § 7; 1986, ch. 539, § 17; 1993, ch. 195, § 8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1988–1988 · leading case: Presley v. City of Memphis, 769 S.W.2d 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
Presley v. City of Memphis, 769 S.W.2d 221 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “Whatever the reason, the fact remains that refunds were not claimed and are therefore presumed abandoned by the owners under the UDUPA, T.C.A. § 66-29-111 (1982) 2 . This is apparently a case of first impression in Tennessee.”
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.