U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED MONEY ORDERS AND TRAVELER’S CHECKS

12 U.S.C. § 2503

State entitlement to escheat or custody

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
Where any sum is payable on a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable—(1) if the books and records of such banking or financial organization or business association show the State in which such money order, traveler’s check, or similar written instrument was purchased, that State shall be entitled exclusively to escheat or take custody of the sum payable on such instrument, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or take custody of such sum;(2) if the books and records of such banking or financial organization or business association do not show the State in which such money order, traveler’s check, or similar written instrument was purchased, the State in which the banking or financial organization or business association has its principal place of business shall be entitled to escheat or take custody of the sum payable on such money order, traveler’s check, or similar written instrument, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or take custody of such sum, until another State shall demonstrate by written evidence that it is the State of purchase; or(3) if the books and records of such banking or financial organizations or business association show the State in which such money order, traveler’s check, or similar written instrument was purchased and the laws of the State of purchase do not provide for the escheat or custodial taking of the sum payable on such instrument, the State in which the banking or financial organization or business association has its principal place of business shall be entitled to escheat or take custody of the sum payable on such money order, traveler’s check, or similar written instrument, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or take custody of such sum, subject to the right of the State of purchase to recover such sum from the State of principal place of business if and when the law of the State of purchase makes provision for escheat or custodial taking of such sum.(Pub. L. 93–495, title VI, § 603, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1525.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Travelers Express Co., Inc. v. State of Minn.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Travelers Express Co., Inc. v. State of Minn. (1981) mnd · cites it 9× “In Count 5, Travelers contends that under 12 U.S.C. § 2503 and the Minnesota U.P.A.”
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Sidamon-Eristoff (2011) njd “12 U.S.C. § 2503 . No such provision has been enacted for SVCs.”
Travelers Express Co., Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. The State of Minnesota and Jim Lord, Treasurer, State of Minneso (1981) ca8 · cites it 3× “The federal statute, 12 U.S.C. § 2503 (1976), authorizes each state to take custody of sums payable on unclaimed money orders to the extent of the state’s power under its own laws.”
Delaware v. Pennsylvania (2023) scotus “” 12 U. S. C. §2503 . This Court consolidated the actions and appointed a Special Master.”
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (2021) ilnd · cites it 9× “Specifically, relator alleges that “[f]ederal common law and a federal statute, 12 U.S.C. § 2503 , establish priorities for determining which of several possible states is entitled to escheat abandoned property held by an entity that does business in multiple states or holds…”
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (2022) ilnd · cites it 6× “]” 12 U.S.C. § 2503 (emphasis added). This case involves escheatment of intangible property, namely cashier’s checks.”
Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Usdhs (2024) ca9 “115 , 138–39 (2023) (relying in part on a Senate Report to construe the limiting parenthetical “(other than a third party bank check)” in 12 U.S.C. § 2503 ). When we use legislative history to understand linguistic usage of words in a statute, rather than the drafters’ intent or…”
State of California ex rel. Ken Elder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2021) cand · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 2503 . The FDA is a statutory 23 exception to the Supreme Court’s priority rules; it governs money owing on money orders, 24 traveler’s checks and “other similar written instrument[s] .”
STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. KEN ELDER v. U.S. Bank N.A. (2021) ilnd “at *4 (citing complaint alleging: “Pursuant to the [IRJUPA and 12 U.S.C. § 2503 (1), defendant JPM was required to pay the amounts owing on these checks” to Illinois, “along with a report identifying all such checks.”
Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Harry's Truck Service, LLC (2023) ilnd “, that cashier’s checks are, as relator asserts, ‘similar written instruments’ under 12 U.S.C. § 2503 . That is something relator must establish to prevail on his claim under [state law].”
Dill v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2020) nysd “Thus, Plaintiffs claim that the Checks eventually became abandoned property subject to applicable state laws of escheatment and to 12 U.S.C. § 2503 , the federal statute governing the priority of escheatment of written instruments (including cashier’s checks).”
Parker v. Delaware Unclaimed Property (2023) wied “” 12 U.S.C. § 2503 . That situation is inapplicable here.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.