10th Circuit - Takings - Escheat - Unclaimed Property Colorado adopted a statute that deals with unclaimed property through escheat. Under its law (which seems to be a uniform law), Colorado puts unclaimed property in trust for the person who has potentially abandoned the property. The person can reclaim the property through a vehicle established by the state on establishing entitlement to the property. The issue in this case involves the gap in time between when the property first enters the state's trusteeship and when it is released to the rightful owner. During that gap period the Colorado law now allows the state to appropriate funds from the trust to its general fund. Two people whose names appeared on the Colorado unclaimed property list sued claiming that moving the money from the trust to the state's uses in the general fund constituted a "taking". Their case was dismissed at the lower court but revived as a panel concluded that the act of appropriating the funds to the public use could arguably constitute a "taking". Rather than finally decide the issue, the panel returned the case to the lower court for the Plaintiffs to actually prove their case. Knellinger vs. Young, Microsoft Word - 23-1018<https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111218840.pdf> Note: I don't generally report on state cases so bear with me as my head continues to spin from stock market chaos and the dramatic Masters finish. I might add that as of the moment I write this - no tariff exists on its publication. All that being said, unclaimed property generally escheats to the state. State laws vary on time limits, types of property and how to reclaim unclaimed property Readers should look at least yearly at whatever state they've ever lived in to see if their name is on the list as they may find treasure there. It's happened to me several times, usually from some insurance company that cannot seem to keep a good record of my current address. Here the question I raise involves whether using money from the unclaimed property trust actually amounts to a taking even arguably. I'm actually astounded that the decision was unanimous and that at least one judge didn't write simply "But, the state never reneged on paying the funds to the owner and escheat existed at common law allowing the state to take absolute control of the property. Therefore, no taking occurred." Sure, the state made use of fungible funds rather than simply hold onto them, but does doing so amount to a "taking" when those funds are already held by the public? What really rattles my mind, escheat existed at common law and despite a rather long history in common law and American jurisprudence raised its ugly head not once in the court's discussion. So, if escheat existed at common law (and when the Constitution was adopted) could a variation on the right of a government to take funds that could have become the government's for all purposes violate the Constitution by temporarily using them? I for one don't see it. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>