In its recent holding in Hall v. State, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on two separate issues related to the Minnesota Unclaimed Property Act (MUPA). The first issue was whether owners of unclaimed property taken into the custody of the State pursuant to MUPA were entitled to the interest the property accrued while it was in the State’s custody. The court held that if the unclaimed property was not interest-bearing at the time of its transfer to the State, no constructive interest would be due from the State, and no taking had occurred under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. If, however, the property was interest-bearing prior to its transfer to the State’s custody, the owner of that property would be entitled to the actual interest that would have been earned had the property remained in his or her possession.
The second issue was whether the owners received sufficient notice that their property was being transferred to the State’s custody. The court held that the notice provided by and under MUPA to owners of interest-bearing property valued over $100 is sufficient to inform owners that their property is subject to transfer to the custody of the State. Thus, MUPA comports with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so holding, the court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the court of appeals’ answers to the two certified questions. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
This case note first explores the history of unclaimed property law in Minnesota and other states. Second, it addresses the history of abandoned property law and how states’ authority to take and use abandoned property has evolved. Following this historical discussion, this case note will discuss the facts of the Hall case and how the court reached its conclusion. Fourth, it argues that all four Plaintiff-Appellants in Hall are entitled to interest from the State of Minnesota under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and it will advocate for a change to the MUPA so that the State may avoid such takings claims in the future.