When probate practitioners discover that an estate includes unclaimed US assets, it can be tempting to assume that the main challenge is locating the property. In reality, establishing entitlement is often the more difficult part.
While every claim is different, recovery frequently depends on presenting a clear documentary chain to the relevant US state authority demonstrating that the claimant is legally entitled to the assets. Even relatively minor inconsistencies in historic records can result in requests for additional evidence and significantly extend the recovery process.
One of the most common issues is a discrepancy in names.
When names don’t match
Marriage, divorce, remarriage, deed poll, initials, spelling variations and even transliteration from another language can mean that the beneficiary’s current legal name differs from the name recorded on the original investment.
Although these differences may appear minor, they can interrupt the documentary chain that links:
- the original registered shareholder;
- the deceased and the estate documentation;
- the beneficiary entitled under the estate; and
- the individual making the claim.
Where that chain cannot be demonstrated clearly, the reviewing authority may request further evidence before the claim can proceed.
A recent Delaware case
Share Data recently concluded a Delaware escheatment claim involving shares inherited by a beneficiary from her aunt. The shares remained registered in the beneficiary’s former married name rather than her current legal name.
Resolving the discrepancy required additional evidence, including a statutory declaration and supporting identification. Although the claim was ultimately successful, the matter took more than three years to conclude.
The case illustrates how an apparently straightforward change of name can become a significant evidential issue when recovering overseas assets.
Reducing avoidable delays
Although documentary requirements vary by state, practitioners can often reduce delays by identifying potential issues before a claim is submitted.
In particular, it is worth confirming:
- the name under which the investment was originally registered;
- whether the claimant has used previous legal names;
- whether documentary evidence exists for each name change; and
- whether the estate documentation clearly establishes entitlement.
Addressing these points early can help avoid unnecessary requests for further evidence and set realistic expectations for beneficiaries.
Cross-border estate administration rarely follows a standard process, and claims involving US unclaimed property often require evidence that spans many years and several jurisdictions. Identifying potential discrepancies at the outset can make the recovery process considerably smoother.
The Delaware case is a useful reminder that recovering escheated US assets is not simply about locating the property. It is equally about demonstrating entitlement through a complete and consistent documentary record.
The full Delaware case study is available on the Share Data website, where we examine the claim in more detail and discuss the practical issues encountered during the recovery process.
