In most cases — as you can probably tell — we’re rooting for the property owner. But there are some cases where we’re okay with suspending our usual predilections. The case which resulted in the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion in Dani v. Miller, No. 114482 (Mar. 29, 2016) is one of those.
It’s a long opinion (39 pages), way longer than the issues deserved. But for some reason, the court addressed each of the plaintiff’s challenges to Oklahoma’s unclaimed property statute. All over a grand total of $169.56. Actually, it wasn’t even over this amount, because the plaintiff was able to claim it from the state:
Plaintiff/Appellant Robert N. Dani (Appellant) is an Oklahoma resident and taxpayer. Certain property belonging to Appellant was handed over to the State Treasurer pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA), 60 O.S. §§ 651-688, because it was presumed abandoned. The property consisted of $19.56, received in 2004 and submitted by Chevron/Texaco, as well as $150.00, received in 2013 and submitted by Office Depot, Inc. Appellant filed a claim this property on or about January 16, 2014. His claim was approved, and a check was issued to Appellant for $169.56 on April 17, 2014.
Slip op. at 2-3.
No good deed goes unpunished, of course, and the guy sued.
Naturally, thrown in with his other claims was a takings claim. He couldn’t claim his property was taken because as the court noted, it had been returned. Instead, he claimed that it was a taking for the state to not pay him interest on the money.
Not so, rightly held the court:
The State is not required to compensate a claimant for the consequences of their own neglect, and this includes interest their property might generate while temporarily in the custody of the State. Just because the Legislature chose not to terminate an owner’s rights in abandoned property does not mean it is required to allow a claim for interest. Courts in other states have reached a similar result applying Texaco, Inc. [v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982)] to their own unclaimed property statutes, including claims for interest… Appellant’s claim that the UUPA effectuates a taking in violation of the U.S. Const. amend. V is meritless.
Slip op. at 26-27.
We couldn’t agree more, Your Honors.
Dani v. Miller, No. 114482 (Okla. Mar. 29, 2016)