Bill Text: DE HB133 | 2009-2010 | 145th General Assembly | Draft
Bill Title: An Act To Amend Title 11 Of The Delaware Code Pertaining To Compensation For Innocent Victims Of Crime.
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 14-5)
Status: (Passed) 2009-08-24 - Signed by Governor [HB133 Detail]
Download: Delaware-2009-HB133-Draft.html
|
SPONSOR: |
Rep. George & Sen. Blevins |
|
|
|
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 146th GENERAL ASSEMBLY |
|
HOUSE BILL NO. 133 |
|
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 12 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO ESCHEAT. |
Section 1.Amend Section 1203(a), Title 12 of the Delaware Code by inserting "Unless otherwise addressed in§1203(b)," at the beginning of such section between the "(a)" and the words "The payment or delivery".
Section 2.Amend Section 1203(a), Title 12 of the Delaware Code by inserting at the end of the existing language after "such delivery or payment.", a new sentence to read as follows:"Application of this subsection (a) is mutually exclusive of subsection (b) of this section and, accordingly, shall not be applied in conjunction with §1203(b).".
SYNOPSIS
|
This Act is necessary to remedy issues relating to the interpretation of certain escheatable "property" and the timing that such "property" escheats, as addressed by the Delaware Supreme Court in A.W. Financial Services, S.A. v. Empire Resources, Inc., 981 A.2d 1114 (2009).In particular, this Act is necessary to clarify that property that is explicitly named in and escheats pursuant to §1203(b), Title 12, such as certificated and uncertificated securities, is not subject to interpretation under §1203(a), Title 12. This Act remedies confusion that exists as a result of the current statutory construction of §1203(a) and §1203(b), Title 12 which, when read literally, arguably would allow certain property to be interpreted as "property" for purposes of both §1203(a) and §1203(b), Title 12.More to the point, in certain cases, a legal argument can be made that §1203(a) and §1203(b) apply contemporaneously to the same set of facts.This amendment eliminates such a nonsensical result by making clear that subsections (a) and (b) are mutually-exclusive, whereby the application of subsection (a) is to the exclusion of subsection (b), and vice versa. |
