Relating to trust property.
SB 146 updates Oregon’s laws governing escheat, unclaimed property, and estate administration, with a particular focus on property that passes to the state when no heir or devisee can be found. The bill requires personal representatives and affiants handling estates to make best efforts to sell or otherwise liquidate escheated real or personal property, allows low-value property to be destroyed or disposed of instead of delivered to the State Treasurer, and sets out deed-recording procedures for real property transferred in kind to the state. It also revises estate accounting rules to require additional disclosures when part of an estate will escheat, and it clarifies the State Treasurer’s rights and procedures when a missing beneficiary’s share or an intestate estate is transferred to the Unclaimed Property and Estates Fund.
The bill also modernizes Oregon’s unclaimed property statutes to address digital assets. It adds definitions for digital assets, treats them as a form of intangible property, and establishes when they are presumed abandoned. Holders of abandoned digital assets must report them, provide notice to owners, and, if possible, deliver them in native form to the State Treasurer; the Treasurer may also direct liquidation or decline to accept certain digital assets if they are not freely transferable or are too costly to maintain. SB 146 further updates reporting, sale, and disposition rules for unclaimed property, securities, and escheated real property, and it expands the State Treasurer’s authority to sell property through commercially reasonable methods, including electronic forums, while preserving owner claim rights to proceeds under the unclaimed property system.
In addition, the bill revises several provisions affecting financial institutions and other holders of abandoned property. It updates the definition of “last-known address,” expands the concept of “owner contact,” clarifies when deposits, checks, and other financial assets are presumed abandoned, and tightens notice and recordkeeping requirements. It also changes reporting thresholds and procedures for holders, including lawyer trust accounts and other custodians of unclaimed funds, and it authorizes the Treasurer to establish rules for handling sold securities and digital assets and for exempting certain classes of digital assets from reporting or liquidation.
The overall sentiment around SB 146 appears strongly positive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate and House unanimously, and the committee votes were also unanimous, suggesting broad bipartisan support for the technical and administrative changes. The absence of recorded opposition or committee transcript debate indicates the measure was generally viewed as a practical update to estate, unclaimed property, and digital-asset administration.
The main points of potential contention are not reflected in the voting record, but the bill does make policy choices that could matter to affected parties. Those include giving the State Treasurer broad discretion over whether to accept, sell, or liquidate digital assets; allowing destruction of low-value property; and limiting owner recourse for post-liquidation gains. Personal representatives, financial institutions, attorneys handling trust accounts, and holders of digital assets are the most directly affected groups, along with heirs, devisees, and owners seeking to reclaim property from the state.
SB 146 amends Oregon probate and unclaimed-property statutes, including ORS 98.302, 98.308, 98.352, 98.382, 98.384, 112.055, 114.555, 116.083, 116.193, and 116.203, and adds new provisions to ORS chapters 98 and 116. It changes how escheated estate property is handled, expands reporting and notice duties for holders of abandoned property, and creates a statutory framework for abandoned digital assets. The bill primarily affects personal representatives, the State Treasurer, financial institutions, attorneys, holders of unclaimed property, and owners or heirs with claims to abandoned or escheated assets.
The bill’s reception was overwhelmingly favorable. It passed the Senate committee 5-0, the Senate floor 29-0, the House committee 7-0, and the House floor 49-0. With no recorded opposition in the available materials and no committee transcript debate, the measure appears to have been treated as a technical modernization bill with broad support.
No explicit controversy appears in the available record, but the bill’s most significant policy choices involve the State Treasurer’s expanded discretion over digital assets and escheated property, including whether to accept, liquidate, or destroy low-value assets. Another possible point of concern is the reduced practical control for owners once digital assets are liquidated, since the bill bars recourse for post-sale gains. These issues would most likely matter to heirs, owners of digital assets, financial institutions, and estate administrators, though none of them are shown to have opposed the bill in the recorded votes.