Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to unclaimed money and check escheatment.

[1] Images of the disputed items can be viewed in the two affidavits from Jennifer Whitlock, head of global supply chain for MoneyGram.

[13] On July 23, 2021, the special master issued the First Interim Report,[14] ruling that disputed instruments are covered by the Federal Disposition Act.

"[15] Under American law, escheatment has been justified under the public policy that unclaimed and abandoned assets should be "used for the general good rather than for the chance enrichment of particular individuals or organizations," per Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey 341 U.S. 428, 436 (1951).

The revised Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, published in 1966, included "money orders and traveler's checks."

"[19] The special master stated that he read the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, where he felt that Delaware was "emphasizing a circumstance that, if correct, would distinguish between rights and obligations, at least comparing the disputed instruments with those that MoneyGram labels as 'money orders.

[18] Once the special master's First Interim Report concluded the disputed instruments were covered under the FDA, Delaware filed an exception.

"[18] He subsequently issued a Second Interim Report, which concluded that many of the disputed instruments were or could be "third party bank check[s]" and would thereby be "excluded from the FDA.

[1] According to the primary rule (default), the proceeds of abandoned financial produce should escheat "to the State of the creditor's last known address as shown by the debtor's books."

It specifically drew attention to Western Union's failure to maintain records of the addresses of consumers who purchased its financial products.

[1] In a direct response to the court's holding in Pennsylvania v. New York, Congress created a more equitable rule and passed the FDA.

"A variety of dictionary definitions contemporaneous with the Act's passage universally define a 'money order' as a prepaid financial instrument used to transmit a specified amount of money to a named payee.

The court went on to note one reason that the FDA was passed was to "prevent [...] a 'windfall' to the State of incorporation by instead adopting a place-of-purchase escheatment rule."

The majority opinion held that nothing in the legislature's history supported Delaware's view that the disputed instruments were "third party bank checks."

The court also considered the statements of committee chair Senator Sparkman, which reviewed the addition of the "third party payment bank check" exclusion as a "minor" change.

[1] The court held that, based on the history and text of the FDA, "it would be strange to interpret the 'third party bank check' language to exempt from the statute entire swaths of prepaid financial instruments that are otherwise similar to money orders in that they operate in generally the same fashion and would likewise escheat inequitably pursuant to the common law due to the business practice of company holding the funds.

[1][3] Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity believes that Delaware may owe up to $400 million to the plaintiff states as result of the court's ruling.

[6][13] This ruling means that Pennsylvania residents will have a real opportunity to reclaim millions of dollars in unclaimed property.

The Supreme Court rejected Delaware's attempt to gain an unfair windfall and struck a strong blow in favor of consumers.