Complaint Review: Legal Claimant Services/Keane - New York New York

 Why did you eventually use Legal Claimant Services? I have information, a bank statement, my uncle gave me regarding an old IRA my dad had with Wells Fargo , and a mutual fund, also in Texas. I am in Alabama . I got a letter from Legal Claimant Services stating they have information on unclaimed money and will help me get it for 25%. Roughly $900. They will not tell me it's from Wells Fargo, but I assume it is because the amount is similar. It would be nice if it's not because then that means there are 2 things. The statement I have from Wells Fargo says in 2010 it was around $3300. Legal claimant services' letter says it's $3700. Could have accrued interest in 6 years, I suppose. But they want $900 to claim it leaving me with $2800. Luckily I recently had an affadavit of heir ship filed on my behalf by an aunt and had the death certificate sent to me. I contacted Wells Fargo and they were very nice and said as long as I can provide the documents they need, I can file this claim easily myself and for free. So I didn't get back to legal claimant services just yet. What I plan to do is wait and see if I get the money myself, will they admit it was the same account? If Wells Fargo puts me through too much red tape then I may have to use legal claimant services. You said you handled your parents affairs so why couldn't you just claim the money yourself? Why negotiate even down to 15%? My case is unique in that my father didn't leave a will, and my mother remarried in 1987 and had my birth certificate legally changed so he is not listed as my father. The social security administration has him listed though, and my aunt already filed the affadavit of heir ship on my behalf for the sale of some land. Wish me luck? I was wondering why you didn't get yours yourself though. Makes me concerned they aren't going to accept my downloaded PDF copy of the documents I have. I am in Alabama so going to Texas to claim $2000-$3000 is out of the question.

I really got a kick out of Keane's additional lame attempt to justify its smarmy business practices; primarily they just repeat word for word what they said in their initial attempt at rebuttal, or in some places they try to re-state what they already said by using even more convouted legalese gobbledygook.  

And they are still citing Texas law incorrectly.  Dudes: your attorneys should be familiar with the "Blue Book" on citation form, although I wouldn't bet on it.  Well, Texas has its own unusual citation forms, so they have their own "Blue Book," which is actually green, for correct citation of Texas state law.  Spend some of the piles of money you bilk out of uninformed consumers and buy your legal department a copy of that book--so that when you throw around Texas statutes you won't look like a bunch of bumbling amatuers again next time.

Your self-righteous, often word for word repetitious claim that the government cannot interfere with the right to contract is just absurd.  In this case, Texas does in fact legally "interfere" by restricting the right to contract in this kind of case, by capping these "finders' fees" at ten percent of the value of the asset.  This is just one of many, many consumer protection statutes that we have all over the country, and they are perfectly legal.  Unfortunately, most of Keane's "marks" don't know about this statutory restriction on Keane's fees--but if you are a consumer reading this, now YOU know.

This exchange has been amusing, but I'm not going to waste my time replying again.  I will exit this argument with a note addressed to any consumer who happens to be reading this:  If Keane or a similar company has contacted you, watch your back.  Before you sign anything, contact your own state treasurer's unclaimed property division (they all have websites) to find out what the law is in your state concerning these bottom-feeding predators.  You can also try to negotiate their fees; Keane did finally agree to "find" my property for fifteen percent of the total rather than their original offer of 35%, but because ten percent is the legal limit in this state, I would not accept even their considerably reduced offer.  And of course you are free to believe Keane's version of their attempted scam on me, or you are free to believe my version, which is predicated on what I learned by contacting the official Texas unclaimed property division.  Take your pick.

To Keane:  Of course you are free to write another attempted rebuttal, but you are just going to keep looking dumber and dumber and smarmier and smarmier.  Go for it!  Byeeee.

Let's start with this company's attempted reliance on Texas law, which is incorrectly cited by Keane as "V.T.C.A., Property Code Sec. 74.507."  The  "V.T.C.A." is an old, pre-codification reference to Texas Statutes; the "V" stands for "Vernon," the prior publisher of Texas statutes, which were recodified and retitled about 20-25 years ago. the V.T.C.A. reference has not been used for as many years.  Dudes. Throw out those moldering Texas law books and yank yourselves into the 21st Century of Texas jurisprudence.

Now, students (I used to be a law professor too, as well as an attorney), let's look carefully at the provision that they they claim "proves" that the ten percent contingent fee limitation, and I quote, "only applies to property that is 'reportable to the comptroller ... , that has been reported to the comptroller or that is in possession of the comptroller.'"  Ahem.  My property had not yet been reported to the Texas authorities, but it was "reportABLE."  That is, to use Keane's deceptive terminology, that would be "prior to an asset being due to, or in the possession of, a state."  In other words, "reportable," as that term is used in the statute they themselves quote.   Eventually, the company holding my asset would have been required by law to report it. It was, again, "reportable."  So the ten percent limit on Keane's share nevertheless applies, as the Comptroller's office confirmed to me when I telephoned them to question Keane's original offer.

To summarize, then, as I explained in my first report, the wrinkle that Keane exploits is that they contact various corporations (in my case Wells Fargo Shareholder Services) and cut deals with them PRIOR to the legally required reporting date to take over the company's legal obligation to identify and report allegedly unclaimed property.  Of course they charge the company for this service too.

They then contact the owners of the property BEFORE the company would eventually have been required to report this information to the state, and propose their outrageous contingent fees.  (Which, by the way, after I checked my correspondence was originally "only" 35%, not 40% as originally reported, sorry.)  By weaseling themselves into the mandatory reporting process early, they get paid a cut by the corporation, AND they get more than a third of the asset they "rescue" from the uninformed owner.   Another misleading subtle suggestion in their rebuttal is that their highly profitable intervention process rescues the asset from being completely taken by the state and thus being lost to the true owner for all time unless Keane is paid their usurious third.  Again, wrong.  The property simply goes onto the state's registry list of unclaimed property where, hopefully, the true owner will check the list from time to time and eventually claim his/her property.  (See what happened with another "lost" asset I located, last paragraph here.)

Now, class, let's turn to the subject of settling a lawsuit.  Keane's understandably huffy "defense" to the "unrelated lawsuit" I mentioned in my first report above, was that it was "settled by the parties without any admission of wrongdoing."  Well, of course.  That's the whole point of settlment.  The lawsuit is public record, and relates that Keane was in the process of supposedly acquiring the plaintiff company; these deals require "due diligence," which means that the company to be acquired must share its client/account information with the prospective buyer (here Keane), to verify that the company to be acquired has the approximate value as represented.  In that eventually settled case, the Plaintiff company to be acquired alleged in their lawsuit against Keane that in that due diligence process, Keane took the company's confidentially reported information and used it to poach the acquiree's clients prior to purchase.  Naturally Keane would want to settle that case as soon as possible, and naturally Keane would have required as part of that settlement that it did not have to admit to wrongdoing.  That's almost aways what happens when the defendant in such a lawsuit gets caught red-handed.  They also normally require a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement so nobody will ever know how much money they paid to get out of the lawsuit.  Now, true, that case didn't involve the "reportable" property scam they tried to pull on me.  But it it is highly relevant to an understanding of Keane's business practices.

Also under the category of settlement, it is very common for cases to be settled before any lawsuit is filed, which is what happened here, because the potential defendant (here Keane) does not want either the adverse publicity or the major expense of defending a threatened lawsuit.   They admit that they didn't have to tell me who was holding my asset hostage, but eventually they did, due to (as they tell it) an "unpleasant exchange with the Legal Claimant," which would be me.  I totally agree that our "exchanges" became "unpleasant" on both ends during our negotiations.  I do tend to get a little cranky with perpetrators when I know I am being ripped off. After this information was wisely revealed to me by Keane, the process, as I reported originally, did involve some unnecessary red tape; but at no time was I "confused" nor did I ever "confess inability to navigate the claim process" as Keane falsely claims in their rebuttal.  My asset was worth nearly ten throusand dollars.  What they describe as their "white glove service" is not worth three thousand five hundred dollars to avoid a little red tape. 

The lesson to be learned here:  check these state abandoned property registries online in every state you have lived in at least once a year.  You may be in for a pleasant surprise as I was!  Once I got going on this process as a result of Kean's attempted scam, I checked all these registries myself and turned up another nice little fund that belonged to my parents when they were living in California in the very early 1940s.  My dad was a WWII veteran, who landed on the beach in Normandy on D-Day 1944.  With all of that trauma, it seems they just forgot they had this little gem, which was resting on the California abandoned property registry collecting compound interest for nearly seventy years.  Wow, thanks, Mom and Dad!  Check those registries, friends!

And memo to Keane:  You would be better off not trying to rebut this statement yet again, because you will just embarrass yourself further.

The above consumer complaint stems from the consumer’s inherent failure to understand the law and insistence that she is right despite all evidence to the contrary.  The content of this consumer’s compliant is both inaccurate in its statement of facts and wholly incorrect in its interpretation of Texas law. 

Legal Claimant Services is a division of Venio LLC d/b/a Keane.  For more than 60 years, Keane has been in the business of locating estate fiduciaries, beneficiaries, legatees or heirs at law that are entitled to the assets of deceased individuals (“Legal Claimants”) and reuniting them with accounts registered to a deceased owner.  Often these are dormant accounts that are at risk of being delivered to a state treasurer or comptroller under a legal obligation of the corporation or financial institution holding the asset.  The process of delivery to the state is referred to as “escheatment.”  Keane performs its location and re-unification services through arrangements with various corporations, financial institutions and stock transfer agents.  These entities enlist Keane’s services as a value-add to their shareholders or investors since the institutions are under no obligation to seek out the Legal Claimants of deceased owners.  Keane will identify and locate the Legal Claimant, and for an agreed upon fee of no more than 1/3 of the value of the asset, assist with all paperwork required to perfect the Legal Claimant’s claim.  At no time did Keane quote the Legal Claimant a fee of forty percent.  Moreover, there is no provision of Texas law that restricts the right to contract prior to an asset being due to, or in the possession of, the state.  Such a law would violate the individual and corporate right to contract free from unreasonable government interference.

Under Texas law, as under the laws of most states, property is only due to be reported to the state after it has been deemed “dormant” for a defined period.  This dormancy period is to protect consumers and avoid unnecessary government involvement.  This thus creates an interim period where assets are dormant but not yet due to be reported to the state.  While Texas law does limit the fee that can be charged by a “finder,” such limitation only applies to property which “is reportable to the comptroller…, that has been reported to the comptroller, or that is in the possession of the comptroller…”  (V.T.C.A., Property Code §74.507).  The service offered by Keane to assist in recovery of an asset during the period of dormancy, before it is reportable to the comptroller and therefore is not subject to any fee cap under Texas law.  Keane and the Legal Claimant can negotiate any fee they each deem reasonable between them for the services as the state cannot restrict their rights to contract with regard to assets over which it does not yet have jurisdiction.

Moreover, in the matter presently at issue, the asset in question consists of shares of stock in a corporation for which Wells Fargo Shareowner Services is the transfer agent.  Although Keane had no legal obligation to do so, it disclosed this information to the Legal Claimant in an effort to bring an amicable end to an unpleasant exchange with the Legal Claimant.  Despite the Legal Claimant’s expectations, Wells Fargo Shareowner Services a stock transfer agent and does not maintain a direct relationship with Wells Fargo Bank that would create a cross referencing of the names and addresses of investors.  The Legal Claimant’s confusion, and confessed inability to navigate the claim process directly with Wells Fargo Shareowner Services, is a testament to the inherent value of Keane’s services.  Had the Legal Claimant enlisted Keane’s services, Keane would provide a white-glove service assisting with all forms and documentation necessary to appropriately claim the shares.

Finally, the Legal Claimant’s reference in her compliant to an unrelated civil suit has no relationship to the service offered by Keane.  It stemmed from a business dispute between two companies, a common occurrence in any business.  The substance of the dispute is wholly misstated by the Legal Claimant, and the matter was settled between the parties without any admission of wrongdoing.