Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1965 )


Menu:
  • Honorable J. M. Falkner            Opinion No. C-573
    Banking Commissioner of Texas
    John H; Reagan Building            Re:   Where the by-laws of a
    Austin, Texas 78701                      depository provide for the
    assessment of a charge
    against the account of a
    shareholder who falls to
    Increase hi6 share.balance
    to a minkmum of $5.00 and
    the aseeaement of e&i
    charges absorbs such accounts
    within 10 month8 is the .
    account subject co escheat,
    as a dormant or Inactive
    account, under Article ,3272b,
    Dear Mr. Falkner:                        V.C.S.?
    Your recent letter requesting the opinion of this
    office    on the above captioned matter reads aa follows:
    "This Department~haa before it for further
    consideration a standard by-law provlalon, pre-.
    vloualp approved by this Department and in operation
    in a slightly different form, by which certain
    Depositories under the supervision of the Depart-
    ment of Bank&g   have been absorbing account8 of
    lese than five iiollars ($5.00).
    "Sin& Article 3272b, V.C.S., has become
    generally applicable to such Depositories, the
    Department of Banking is not nure whether amounts
    80 absorbed within ten (lo) months aye nevertheless
    subject to Escheat by the State of Texas.
    "In view of the above your opinion is
    respectfully requested to &he following question:
    "Where each of a class of Depositories,
    authorized by State Law, has had atandard by-laws
    which have provided for levy of charges against
    a shareholder for failure, wltNn.prescrlbed periods,'
    -2769-
    Hon. J. M. Falkner, page 2 (C-573)
    to Increase his share balance to a minimum of
    five dollars ($5.00), a8 required of each bhare-
    holder by the by-laws and the contradt between
    the shareholder and the Depository ,areeuch
    charges when made In accordance with the by-laws
    and contract In less than one year after the
    original payment on the share deposit by the
    shareholder aubJect to Escheat to the State of
    Texas as a :dormant deposit' or 'Inactive account'
    under Article 3272b, Revised Civil Statutes of
    Texas?"
    While your letter Is not specific as to the particular
    type of depository with which you are concerned, we preaume'that
    such depositories are organized and function pursuant to some
    form of corporate charter.
    Corporation8 are privileged to exist and function solely
    by virtue of sovereign authority. Raving been brought lrito
    being by the State, their rights and powers are preac?lbed bg
    the State. Brennan v. Weatherford 
    53 Tex. 330
    (188C
    Frank Co. v. Latham 145 T     30 193 S W 2d 671 (194&%%
    Brewing Co. v. Curtis, ~6~::~.2;i 853 (+ei.Clv.App. 1938 7
    history), The statutes which authorize the creation of Corpora-
    tlons ordlnarlly provide that they may adopt by-lawe for the
    purpose of prea&lblng rulea for conducting-the affairs of the
    corporation. See for example Article 342- 403 Texas Banking
    Code of 1943; Article 2466 Veinonts Civil Statutes. However
    by-laws of & corporation n&t be consonant with the constitution,
    statutes and public policy of the sovereign and corporate by-laws
    which are In conflict therewith must, to the extent of such confll.ct,
    be held Invalid. Staacke v. RoutledRe, 
    111 Tex. 489
    ; 
    241 S.W. 994
    (1922); International Travelers' AssIn v. Francis, 
    119 Tex. 1
    , 
    23 S.W.2d 28
    (19 0) Kerbs v. California EiaaternAirways 
    33 Del. Ch. 69
    , 90 :.2d 6352'(1952)
    ; W ebb v. Morehead, ,251 N .C . 544,
    
    111 S.E.2d 586
    (1959).
    Public policy finda Its ultimate expreeeion In the
    statutes and constitution of the state. Order of Odd Fellows v'.
    Jones 
    138 Tex. 537
    , 
    160 S.W.2d 915
    (19421; Qossett     Hamilton
    rsIWi2d    297 (Tex.Clv.App. 1939, error dim., judgent correct).
    And, within the llmltatlone prescribed by our constitution, It
    is the prerogative of the legislature to enunciate, reshape and
    change public policy. Scarborough v. Payne, 
    198 S.W.2d 917
    (Tex.Clv.App. 1947, error ref.).
    -2770-
    Hon. J. M. Palkner, page 3 (c-573)
    In furtherance of Its prerogative the 57th Legislature
    enact& Article 3272b of Vernon's Civil Statutes and therein
    provided for the escheat of "dormant deposits" and "lnabtlve
    accounts" 86 defined In Section l(b) of Artiole 3272b, which
    providea:
    "b . The terms 'dormant deposits' and 'inactive
    accounts' mean those demand, savings or other
    deposits of money .or Its equivalent In banking
    practice Including but not limited to aura due on
    certlfle& checks dividend8 notes accrued interest,
    or other evldenc& of Indebtedness: held by a
    depository for repayment to the depositor or
    creditor, or his order, which on or after the
    effective date of this Article have contlnuou~sly
    remalped Inactive for a period of'more than one
    (1) y&ar without credit or debit whatsoever through
    the act of the depositor, either In person or
    through an authorlzed,agent other than the depository
    Itself. 'Dormant depbslts' and 'Inactive acoounta'
    lose their status aa such when ~8 deposit Is made
    by the depositor, or a check Is drawn or wlthdpawal
    in made therefrom by such depositor, either In
    peraon or through an authorized agent other than
    the depository itself."
    It,Is to t~hosedeposits and accounts falllng``w1thl.n
    the
    -.  scope of
    - .thia
    _    ..    _. .that the force
    definition           _   of
    - the
    _ Statute.
    -.    is
    -._
    directed. Under this crlterla any actlon or a aeposltory wltn
    respect to a deposit or~accoun& is to be disregarded and we must
    look solely to'the '- _ .act of the dewsltor- either in neraon I
    or through-an authotiizdd-agentother t&n the'deposltory itself"
    to determine whether a deposit or account Is dormant or Inactive.
    (Emphasis added). The contention that an account or~deposlt never
    becomes "dormant" or "Inactive" If the depoaltory has, pursuant
    to its by-law@, absorbed such deposit or account In less than
    one year simply Ignores the plain language used by the Legislature
    in Its definition. Id .our opinion, the Legislature deliberately
    drafted this definition 80 aa to speclflc&lly preclude the
    poeslblllty that deposits and accounts could be removed from
    the operable effect of Article 3272b by a depository which
    abeorbs such accounts through the assessment of aervlce.chargeti,
    fines, penalties or other charges. All deposits and accounts
    remain subject to escheat even though they may~have been absorbed
    by asaessmenta which were levied within the first year of
    Inactivity.
    -2771-
    Hon. J. M. tilkner, page 4 (C-573)
    Our conclusion In this regard I.8supported by the fact
    that Section 2,,ofArticle 3272b makes It unlawful for anp
    depository to      .tranafer, convert or reduce any dormant
    deposit or lnac&ie account to the profits or assets of the
    depository; either through book transfers, assessments,service
    charges or any other procedure ao long aa the deposit or account.
    remains in a dormant or Inactive stata&. . . ."
    We wish to make It clearly understood that we do not
    hold that a by-law such as the one in question ls.lnvalld per oe,
    but we do hold that, Insofar as the operable effect of the by-law
    would apply to reduce or absorb deposits or accounts which In
    the absence of such charges fall within the scope of Article
    3272b such by-law conflicts with public policy and Is Invalid
    to this extent. Therefore you are hereby advised that once a
    deposit or account, witho& taking into consideration any service
    charge, fine or penalty which may have been assessed against It
    by the depository becomes dormant or Inactive under the terms
    of Section l(b) of Article 3272b, and remains in such statue
    for the period prescribed by said Article, the amount of such
    deposit or account as of the beginning of the period of l~ctlvlt~,
    less any charges specifically authoi%zed under Article 3272b, :
    Is subject to escheat. However, If, at any time prior to the
    .dellvery of a dormant deposit or inactive account to the.State
    Treasurer, such deposit br account, by reason of the action of
    the depositor, either in person or through amauthorized agent
    other than the depository Itself, ceases to be dormant or inactive,
    Article 3272b would not preclude the depository from aaseaslng
    the charge, fine or penalty prescribed by its by-laws.
    SUMMARY
    Service charges, fines or penalties assessable
    against a deposit or account under the by-laws
    of a depository are not to be considered In deter-
    mining whether a deposit or account Is dormant
    or Inactive within the meaning of Section l(b) of
    Article 3272b Vernon18 Civil Statutes and the
    entire deposli or account as of the b&ginning of
    the period of Inactivity 'leas any charge specifically
    authorized by Article 32?2b, Is subject to eacheat
    under such Article. However, should a deposit nor
    account cease to be dormant or Inactive by reason
    of the action of the depositor, either in person'
    -2772-
    _.       -
    .        .
    Hon. J. M. Falkner, page 5 (C-573)
    or through an authorized agent other than the
    depository Itself prior to the delivery of such
    deposit or account to the State Treasurer, Article
    3272b, Vernon's Civil Statutes would not preclude
    the levy of the charges prescrlbed by the by-laws
    of the depository.
    Very truly yours,
    WAQGONW CARR
    Attorney General
    Assistant
    wos
    :mi
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEZ
    W. V. Qeppert, Chairman
    Wade Anderson
    Roy Johnson
    John Pettlt
    APPROVED FOR TRE A'l'lQRNEY
    GENERAL
    By: T. B. Wright
    -2773-