598 U.S. 115
SCOTUS2023Background:
- MoneyGram sells prepaid financial instruments through third-party sellers; the two products at issue (Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks) are prepaid, transmitted to named payees, and MoneyGram holds the proceeds.
- MoneyGram does not, as a regular business practice, retain purchaser/payee address records for those Disputed Instruments; it treats Retail Money Orders as covered by the federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (FDA) but treats Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks under the common law (escheating to its state of incorporation, Delaware).
- Under the common-law framework (Texas v. New Jersey), abandoned intangible property escheats first to the creditor’s last known address (if on debtor’s books) or, secondarily, to the debtor’s state of incorporation when address records are unavailable.
- Congress enacted the FDA (12 U.S.C. §2501 et seq.) to displace the common-law rules for money orders, traveler’s checks, and “other similar written instruments (other than a third party bank check),” directing escheat generally to the State of purchase to avoid inequitable windfalls to states of incorporation when issuers lack address records.
- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arkansas and other States sued Delaware in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction contesting Delaware’s escheat of MoneyGram funds; the Special Master first found FDA coverage, later suggested many Disputed Instruments might be excluded as “third party bank checks.” The Supreme Court held the Disputed Instruments fall within the FDA and are not excluded as third party bank checks.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks are covered by the FDA as “money orders” or “other similar written instruments” | Delaware: FDA does not cover these instruments; common-law escheat to state of incorporation applies | Defendant States: instruments are functionally similar to money orders and fall within FDA (place-of-purchase rule) | Court: Instruments are sufficiently “similar” to money orders and covered by the FDA; escheat generally to state of purchase |
| Whether the instruments are excluded as “third party bank checks” under §2503 | Delaware: instruments are third party bank checks (bank-signed/paid through third party) and therefore excluded from FDA | Defendant States: exclusion was intended narrowly; instruments are not within the intended meaning of third party bank check | Court: Neither legislative history nor text supports a broad reading; Disputed Instruments are not excluded as third party bank checks |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (established primary and secondary common-law escheatment rules for intangible property)
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71 (addressed escheatment of Western Union money orders and practical recordkeeping issues)
- Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (challenged Texas rules for money orders; highlighted inequitable escheatment when issuers lack address records)
- Delaware v. New York, 507 U.S. 490 (discussed FDA’s displacement of common-law rules and statutory context)
- Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (use of ordinary contemporary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (legislative history can illuminate ambiguous statutory text)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (syllabus note explaining that syllabi are not part of Court’s opinion)