Third-Party Surplus-Recovery Agent Rules
Cross-jurisdiction doctrine page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-06-01. Verify every cited statute/case against the linked primary source before acting — surplus-recovery law is changing fast in the wake of tyler-v-hennepin-county.
What it is
When a tax-foreclosure property sells (at a treasurer-sale or sheriff-sale) for more than the tax debt plus costs, the difference is surplus-funds (a.k.a. excess proceeds, overage, overbid, or — post-resale — “excess equity”). After tyler-v-hennepin-county (2023) held that the government may not keep that surplus, a growing pool of money is owed back to former owners and junior lienholders. A third-party surplus-recovery agent (also “finder,” “locator,” “asset-recovery firm”) is a business that locates former owners, tells them money exists, and — for a contingent fee or via an assignment of the claim — recovers it on their behalf.
This page maps the state-by-state regulation of those agents: fee caps,
licensing/registration, whether the claim can be assigned, cooling-off/waiting
periods, mandatory contract disclosures, and prohibited practices. It is built
from the Module 3 third_party_recovery field on each jurisdiction page; where
that field is still unverified, the state is flagged needs_verification
below and the cell is left honest rather than fabricated.
The single most important structural distinction
Most states have no tax-surplus-specific recovery-agent statute at all. What they have instead is a general unclaimed-property “finder/locator” law (usually a Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, RUUPA), which:
- caps finder fees (commonly 10%, but 15%, 20%, or 25% in some states);
- voids any locate agreement signed within 24 months of the funds being delivered to the State unclaimed-property administrator;
- requires a signed, written agreement disclosing the property, services, and value before/after the fee.
But the unclaimed-property cap only governs the funds once they have escheated to the State unclaimed-property administrator. While the money is still held by the county treasurer / clerk / court (the window in which most recovery deals are actually signed), the cap frequently does not yet apply, and the field is genuinely unsettled in many states. Operators must always determine which custody stage the funds are in before quoting a fee. States that route unclaimed surplus to a county fund (CA, NV, OK, SC, WA, IN, MO) rather than the State administrator may put the surplus outside the RUUPA finder cap entirely.
The governing framework
The constitutional baseline is the surplus-funds / takings line anchored by tyler-v-hennepin-county, 598 U.S. 631 (2023) — unanimous, decided May 25, 2023 — holding that retaining the surplus equity above the tax debt is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. (Justia; LII) That decision is what created the surplus pools these agents pursue; before Tyler, many states simply kept the equity.
Recovery-agent regulation itself is almost entirely statutory and state-level. There is no federal recovery-agent licensing regime. The operative sources are, in rough order of strength:
- A tax-surplus-specific statute (rare but the clearest): TX Tax Code § 34.04; NV NRS 361.610; CO C.R.S. § 39-11.5-109; WA ESHB 1637 (2023); IN IC 6-1.1-24-7.5; AR COSL Rules Title 4; OK 68 O.S. § 3131(D); OR HB 2089 (2025).
- A general unclaimed-property / RUUPA finder statute that reaches surplus only after escheat (most states).
- State consumer-protection / UDAP law (a backstop everywhere; e.g. WA ch. 19.86, MA ch. 93A, VA VCPA § 59.1-200) and private-investigator licensing (NC, UT) where a contingent-fee finder must be a licensed PI.
- Due-process notice rules (due-process-notice, jones-v-flowers, mennonite-v-adams, mullane-v-central-hanover) — increasingly, states now require the government itself to notify the former owner that surplus exists, which shrinks the room for high-fee finders.
State-by-state regulation of recovery agents
Legend — Fee cap: the maximum agent compensation, and the regime it lives
in. Lic.: licensing/registration required for a paid finder. Assign:
whether the surplus claim itself may be assigned (vs. only an agency/POA).
Cooling-off: statutory void/waiting window. ⚠ = a load-bearing value is
still needs_verification on the jurisdiction page.
| Jurisdiction | Fee cap (regime) | Lic. | Assign | Cooling-off / key rule | Primary cite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alabama ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | ⚠ | — | Ala. Code § 40-10-28 |
| alaska ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | likely yes (AS 29.45.470 “assigns”) | — | AS 29.45.480 |
| american-samoa ⚠ | none (no tax-surplus regime) | ⚠ | ⚠ | mortgage surplus → owner via High Court | A.S.C.A. § 37.1109 |
| arizona ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | yes (assignees litigate surplus) | trustee-sale claim process | A.R.S. §§ 33-812, 42-18204 |
| arkansas | 10% (tax-surplus-specific) | ⚠ | agency contract, not outright assignment ⚠ | agent–owner contract must be filed; fee >10% void | Ark. Code § 26-37-205; COSL Rules Title 4 |
| california | none for tax excess proceeds; 10% only for SCO unclaimed property (CCP § 1582 — do not conflate) | no | yes — notarized affidavit of assignment signed after the tax sale | disclosure of amount + free-claim right (RTC § 4675(c)) | Cal. RTC § 4675 |
| colorado | 0% while treasurer holds funds (compensation agreement unenforceable); finder fee void during trustee custody + first 2 yrs state custody, then 20%/30% (mortgage track) | n/a | claim not barred but fee unenforceable | inducing such an agreement = Class 2 misdemeanor | C.R.S. §§ 39-11.5-109(2)(c), 38-38-111 |
| connecticut ⚠ | none located (tax); escheats to Treasurer ch. 32 | ⚠ | “any person” may apply on record interest | municipal-lien-assignment regime § 12-195h is the analog | CGS § 12-157(i) |
| delaware ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | ⚠ | court-run Project Rightful Owner ($75, pro bono) reduces finder room | 9 Del. C. § 8779; Super. Ct. program |
| district-of-columbia ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | ⚠ | owner-occupant equity returned inside Super. Ct. foreclosure (§ 47-1382.01) | D.C. Code §§ 47-1382, 47-1382.01 |
| florida | clerk stage: no cap; after Ch. 717 escheat: 20%, max $1,000/account to a natural person | yes after escheat (attorney/CPA/Class-C PI) | yes via Unclaimed Property Purchase Agreement | two-regime split is business-critical | Fla. Stat. §§ 197.582, 717.135, 717.1400, 717.1351 |
| georgia ⚠ | none located in Title 48 (commercial sites claim ~10%) | many commissioners require licensed GA attorney (office practice) ⚠ | disputed ⚠ | — | O.C.G.A. § 48-4-5 |
| guam ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | ⚠ | no escheat specified | 11 GCA § 24810 |
| hawaii | 25% (unclaimed-property stage only, HRS 523A-25); no county-stage cap | no (PI not confirmed) | ⚠ tax surplus | void if signed from abandonment until 24 mo after delivery | HRS 523A-25; HRS 246-63 |
| idaho ⚠ | RUUPA locator cap (exact % ⚠) for state-held funds | ⚠ | likely yes (county-held, § 31-808) | void until dormancy period (RUUPA) | Idaho Code § 31-808; Title 14 ch. 5 |
| illinois ⚠ | none located (Property Tax Code); historically no surplus (Indemnity Fund model) | ⚠ | certificates assignable; indemnity-claim ⚠ | bell-v-pappas-2025; HB4537 reform pending | 35 ILCS 200/21-305 |
| indiana | 10% (tax-surplus-specific; >$50 only) | ⚠ | recovery agreement permitted but capped | must disclose deposit amount + owner net; AG Homeowner Protection Unit enforces | IC 6-1.1-24-7.5 |
| iowa | 15% finder (unclaimed-property; ch. 556) — no tax surplus exists by design | yes — PI license (ch. 80A) to collect a fee | n/a (no surplus claim to assign) | agreements within 24 months unenforceable | Iowa Code § 556.11(10) |
| kansas ⚠ | none for court-held surplus; 15% RUUPA (58-3968) only after state delivery | ⚠ | UP admin pays only owner/heir, not attorney-in-fact (58-3968) | RUUPA agreements <24 mo unenforceable | K.S.A. §§ 79-2803, 58-3968 |
| kentucky ⚠ | none located (tax surplus); KRS ch. 393A RUUPA analog | ⚠ | chose in action, transferable (Farmers Nat’l Bank) ⚠ | ch. 393A cooling-off (post-remittance) ⚠ | KRS ch. 393A; KRS 426.500 |
| louisiana | 10% (unclaimed-property finder, R.S. 9:177) — applicability to pre-escheat surplus ⚠ | ⚠ | ⚠ | agreements before property reportable prohibited | La. R.S. 9:177 |
| maine | none tax-specific; 10% (unclaimed property, 33 M.R.S. § 2179) after escheat | ⚠ | proceeds are owner’s property, presumptively assignable ⚠ | § 2179 void within 24 months of delivery | 36 M.R.S. § 943-C; 33 M.R.S. § 2179 |
| maryland | none tax-specific; mortgage-surplus acquisitions tightly regulated (RP § 7-314) | OFR-regulated for mortgage surplus | mortgage surplus: written contract + Notice of Rescission | 10-day rescission (mortgage surplus, RP §§ 7-314/7-315) | Md. TP § 14-818; RP § 7-314 |
| massachusetts ⚠ | none tax-specific; 10% (c. 200A § 13 unclaimed property) | no general license; ch. 93/93A apply | ⚠ | c. 200A 24-month unenforceability window | G.L. c. 60 § 64A; c. 200A § 13 |
| michigan ⚠ | none in MCL 211.78t (UP 10% cap doesn’t govern the 78t process) | ⚠ | post-foreclosure assignee status contested ⚠ | 78t is the exclusive mechanism; Form 5743 + Feb 1–May 15 motion window | MCL 211.78t |
| minnesota ⚠ | none located (tax-surplus-specific) | ⚠ | ⚠ | direct county-auditor claim by design; ch. 332 may bear ⚠ | Minn. Stat. § 282.005 |
| mississippi ⚠ | 10% (unclaimed-property analog only; not confirmed for tax overbids) | no (no overbid-specific license) | ⚠ | 7-month bar (unclaimed-property analog) | Miss. Code §§ 27-41-77, 89-12-23 |
| missouri ⚠ | none in ch. 140; agent must act on behalf of an entitled party, not as independent claimant | ⚠ | certificates assignable; surplus-claim assignment ⚠ | UP locator caps post-escheat ⚠ | RSMo § 140.230 |
| montana | no fixed % — “unconscionable” fee unenforceable (MCA § 70-9-825) | no specific license | UP-claim assignment governed by § 70-9-825 | void from abandonment until 24 mo after delivery | MCA §§ 70-9-825, 15-18-221 |
| nebraska ⚠ | none located (LB 727 makes grantee pay surplus in 30 days → small finder market) | ⚠ | certificate assignable; owner’s surplus-right assignment ⚠ | ⚠ | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1838, 77-1837 |
| nevada | 10% (tax-surplus-specific; applies where a natural person’s primary residence was sold) | ⚠ (no NRS 361.610 license req. located) | yes — POA, assignment, or other legal instrument to file + collect | written + signed agreement | NRS 361.610 |
| new-hampshire ⚠ | none verified for tax surplus (do not quote a %) | ⚠ (RSA 479-B foreclosure-consultant law, mortgage context) | proceeds assignable but interpleader court controls ⚠ | RSA 358-A CPA backstop | RSA 80:88, 80:90 |
| new-jersey ⚠ | none located (tax-surplus-specific) | ⚠ | Simon v. Cronecker limits third-party buyout without intervening + paying >nominal | constructive-trust scrutiny | P.L. 2024 c.39; Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (2007) |
| new-mexico ⚠ | none tax-specific located | ⚠ | likely yes — § 7-38-71 pays owner “or other person designated by court order” | UP Act applicability pre/post escheat ⚠ | NMSA § 7-38-71 |
| new-york ⚠ | null/unsettled — APL § 1416 = 15% but governs Comptroller-held funds; RPTL surplus goes to tax district, not Comptroller | APL § 1416 disclosure rules (Comptroller funds) | ⚠ litigated within foreclosure (RPAPL Art. 13) | Seelbach: no special surplus-notice entitlement | RPTL §§ 1196–1197; APL § 1416 |
| north-carolina | 20% (and ≤ lesser of $1,000 or 20% for unclaimed property), reaches “surplus funds in a special proceeding” | yes — annual Treasurer registration and PI license (116B-78.1, since 1/1/2022) | locate agreement, not outright assignment ⚠ | void from distributable until 24 mo after Treasurer delivery | G.S. §§ 116B-78, 116B-78.1 |
| north-dakota | county 90-day window: no cap/license; post-escheat 10% (RUUPA 47-30.2-68) | true post-escheat (locator licensing ch. cross-ref ⚠) | not addressed for 90-day county claim ⚠ | void abandonment→24 mo after delivery (47-30.2-69) | NDCC §§ 57-28-20, 47-30.2-68/-69 |
| northern-mariana-islands ⚠ | none (no tax-surplus regime) | ⚠ | redemption right not assignable (Sablan); surplus-cash claim ⚠ | — | Pac. Fin. Corp. v. Sablan, 2011 MP 19 |
| ohio ⚠ | none verified | ⚠ | residue-claim assignability ⚠ | — | R.C. §§ 5721.19, 5721.20 |
| oklahoma | no % cap located | ⚠ | yes, but only BEFORE resale begins — post-resale assignment is void | hard cutoff at resale commencement (not a window) | 68 O.S. § 3131(D); AG Opinion |
| oregon | assignment-based recovery = 0% (void); private auction operator fee capped at 3% (not a recovery agent) | n/a (model foreclosed by assignment bar) | No — any purported assignment of a surplus claim is void (except bankruptcy/POA/guardianship) | claims go through State Treasury directly | HB 2089 (2025) §§ 5, 6, 9 |
| pennsylvania ⚠ | none in RETSL (Treasury finder rules apply ⚠) | yes (county/Treasury practice) — finder must register with PA Treasury + signed authorization | MCTLA contemplates “assignees”; RETSL surplus assignment ⚠ | DAUPA / Treasury finder rules ⚠ | 72 P.S. § 5860.205 |
| puerto-rico ⚠ | none specific located | ⚠ | yes — surplus/redemption run to owner’s “cesionarios” (assignees) | general Civil Code / UDAP | Ley 107-2020 Arts. 7.080, 7.086 |
| rhode-island ⚠ | none in ch. 44-9 | ⚠ | tax titles assignable (§ 44-9-18); surplus-claim assignment ⚠ | surplus escheats to municipality after 5 yrs | R.I.G.L. § 44-9-37 |
| south-carolina | none in Title 12 ch. 51 | ⚠ (not established) | yes — overage may be “claimed or assigned according to law” | escheat to county general fund after 5 yrs | S.C. Code § 12-51-130 |
| south-dakota ⚠ | none tax-specific; RUUPA ch. 43-41B (exact cap ⚠) | ⚠ | UP-claim assignment via ch. 43-41B | RUUPA 24-mo void window (text not pulled) ⚠ | SDCL § 10-25-39; ch. 43-41B |
| tennessee ⚠ | none located (delinquent-tax chapter) | ⚠ | lienholder’s assignee is “interested person”; excess-proceeds-claim assignment ⚠ | a tax-sale purchaser may NOT claim the excess | Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2702 |
| texas | attorney fee ≤ lesser of 25% or $1,000; assignee recovery ≤ 125% of what was paid the owner (§ 34.04(j)) | no dedicated non-attorney license ⚠ | yes but: ≥ 36 days after deposit, written/signed, pay owner ≥ 80%, no solicitation, sworn affidavit | 36-day waiting period; anti-solicitation | Tex. Tax Code § 34.04(f),(i),(j) |
| us-virgin-islands ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | ⚠ (§ 2584 “assigns” governs redemption, not surplus) | bid manipulation criminal (§ 2549) | 33 V.I.C. §§ 2546, 2547 |
| utah | 20% (Title 67-4a unclaimed property) | yes (conditional) — PI/private-detective license for contingent fee; attorneys/CPAs exempt | POA filed with claim may not carry a fee/% term; outright assignment ⚠ | 24-month void on state-delivered property | Utah Code Title 67 ch. 4a; UCC 3.04.150 |
| vermont ⚠ | none tax-specific (Bogie common-law surplus) | ⚠ | § 5260 “assign” governs redemption; surplus assignment ⚠ | 9 V.S.A. ch. 63 CPA backstop | Bogie v. Town of Barnet, 128 Vt. 280 (1970) |
| virginia | none tax-specific (statute expressly allows “successors, or assigns”) | no special license | yes — § 58.1-3967 names “assigns”; McKeithen involved assignee | VCPA § 59.1-200.1 targets foreclosure-rescue (advance fees/arbitration void), not surplus | Va. Code § 58.1-3967 |
| washington | 5% of value returned (tax-foreclosure-surplus-specific) | no specific license (fee cap + CPA police it) | regulates locating-fee agreement, not outright purchase ⚠ | written/signed disclosure (RCW 63.30.780); >5% = misdemeanor + CPA violation | ESHB 1637 (2023); RCW 63.30.780 |
| west-virginia | none tax-specific (1995 UPA has no finder cap per NAUPA) | no | yes — § 11A-3-65 extends surplus to owner’s “assigns” | ch. 46A consumer-protection backstop | W. Va. Code § 11A-3-65 |
| wisconsin ⚠ | none tax-deed-specific (ch. 177 UP cap reach ⚠) | ⚠ | statute pays “former owner”; assignability ⚠ | ch. 100 consumer-protection ⚠ | Wis. Stat. § 75.36(2m) |
| wyoming ⚠ | none located | ⚠ | § 39-13-108 runs to “prior interests”; assignment not addressed ⚠ | RUUPA (Title 34 ch. 24) locator window ⚠ | Wyo. Stat. § 39-13-108 |
State-by-state specifics (deadlines, waterfalls, escheat destinations) live on each jurisdiction page; this table is the map for the recovery-agent overlay.
How jurisdictions diverge — the operator’s typology
| Pattern | Jurisdictions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Hard %-cap, tax-surplus-specific | arkansas (10%), indiana (10%), nevada (10%, primary residence), washington (5%), texas (attorney 25%/$1k; assignee 125%/80% rule), north-carolina (20%, + PI license) | The clearest regimes; the cap is in the tax or finder statute and applies to the surplus directly. |
| Recovery effectively banned / fee unenforceable | colorado (void + Class-2 misdemeanor to induce), oregon (assignment of claim void) | Operating a contingent-fee/assignment model can be a crime (CO) or simply void (OR). |
| No tax cap; only an unclaimed-property cap after escheat to the State | hawaii (25%), louisiana (10%), maine (10%), massachusetts (10%), north-dakota (10%), utah (20%), kansas/idaho/south-dakota/wisconsin (RUUPA, % ⚠) | Cap bites only once funds are with the State administrator (commonly after a 24-month void window); county-stage deals may be unregulated. |
| Assignment timing is the lever (not a %) | texas (≥36 days post-deposit), oklahoma (only before resale; post-resale assignment void), california (affidavit signed after the sale) | Regulation runs through when an assignment is valid, not a flat fee. |
| Surplus routes to a COUNTY fund (RUUPA cap may not apply at all) | california, nevada, oklahoma, south-carolina, washington, indiana, missouri, new-york (to tax district) | Because the money never reaches the State UP administrator, the State finder cap frequently does not cleanly govern. |
| Government returns equity directly / low-cost public channel (small finder market) | delaware (Project Rightful Owner), maine/new-hampshire (court interpleader), nebraska (grantee pays in 30 days), oregon (State Treasury), wisconsin/minnesota (auditor mails claim form) | Structural competition from a free public process shrinks the recovery-agent opportunity. |
| No tax-surplus regime exists (nothing to recover) | iowa (no surplus by design), american-samoa, northern-mariana-islands, illinois (historical Indemnity-Fund model), wyoming (private tax-deed track), mississippi (state-struck land path) | The classic recovery model has no statutory footing for the tax track. |
No located recovery-agent rule — needs_verification | alabama, alaska, arizona, connecticut, district-of-columbia, georgia, guam, kentucky, ohio, puerto-rico, rhode-island, tennessee, us-virgin-islands, vermont, virginia (no % cap, but assigns allowed), west-virginia (no cap, assigns allowed), and the ⚠ cells above | A statement of “no cap” is itself only as good as the search behind it; treat as open until a primary source confirms the absence. |
Leading cases
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — surplus equity above the tax debt is the owner’s property; retaining it is a Fifth-Amendment taking (the decision that created the recovery-agent market). 598 U.S. 631 (2023).
- jones-v-flowers — returned certified mail obligates further reasonable notice steps; feeds the rising trend of statutes requiring the government to notify owners of surplus (which competes with finders).
- mennonite-v-adams — mortgagees/lienholders of record are entitled to actual mailed notice; relevant to junior-lienholder surplus claims.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — notice “reasonably calculated” to reach the party; the root standard behind due-process-notice.
- Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (2007) — a third party may not buy out an owner’s equity/redemption for nominal consideration without intervening in the foreclosure; courts scrutinize and may impose constructive trusts (see new-jersey). (holding summarized from the NJ jurisdiction page; verify against the reporter before relying.)
Practical playbook (for a recovery operator / a former owner)
- Confirm a surplus actually exists and where it is. Identify the custody stage: county treasurer/clerk → court registry → State unclaimed-property administrator (or a county fund). The applicable rules change at each stage.
- Read the controlling statute for THAT state and stage from the jurisdiction page’s Module 3. Do not assume the unclaimed-property finder cap applies to county-held surplus — in many states it does not.
- Check the fee ceiling before quoting. Hard caps: AR/IN/NV 10%, WA 5%, NC 20% (+PI license), UT 20%, TX attorney 25%/$1,000. Where the only cap is the State unclaimed-property cap, it usually applies only after a 24-month void window.
- Mind the assignment-validity rules. TX: ≥36 days post-deposit, ≥80% to owner, no solicitation, sworn affidavit. OK: assignment only valid before resale begins. CA: affidavit of assignment signed after the sale. OR: assignment of the claim is void. CO: a compensation agreement is unenforceable and inducing one can be a misdemeanor.
- Satisfy disclosure + licensing. Written, signed agreement disclosing the amount available, the owner’s net after the fee, and (where required) that the owner can claim directly for free. Secure any required registration/PI license (NC, UT, FL post-escheat, PA practice).
- Respect the free public channel. In states with court interpleader or a government-notify-and-pay process (DE, ME, NH, OR, MN, WI, NE), the owner can often recover at little or no cost; advise accordingly and price honestly to avoid UDAP exposure.
- For a former owner: you can almost always claim directly. Locate the surplus through the county treasurer/clerk/court or the State unclaimed- property site, file the claim form, and prove identity + interest — usually without paying any percentage to a finder.
Cross-links
surplus-funds, right-of-redemption, due-process-notice, sheriff-sale, treasurer-sale, tyler-v-hennepin-county, jones-v-flowers, mennonite-v-adams, mullane-v-central-hanover, tax-foreclosure
Sources
Primary sources retrieved for this page (recovery-agent provisions verified 2026-06-01):
- {US Supreme Court, Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/22-166/ , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, Tex. Tax Code § 34.04 (attorney 25%/$1,000 cap; 36-day/80%/125% assignment rules), https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04 , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-7.5 (10% tax-sale-surplus cap; AG enforcement), https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-6/article-1-1/chapter-24/section-6-1-1-24-7-5/ , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, NRS 361.610 (10% cap for primary-residence excess proceeds; POA/assignment authorization), https://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/chapter-361/statute-361-610/ , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, N.C.G.S. §§ 116B-78 / 116B-78.1 (20% cap; Treasurer registration + PI license since 1/1/2022; 24-month void window), https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_116B/GS_116B-78.1.html , https://www.nccash.gov/property-finder-information , 2026-06-01}
- {statute/bill, WA ESHB 1637 (2023) (5% cap on county foreclosure-surplus finders; misdemeanor; CPA violation), https://wa-law.org/bill/2023-24/hb/1637/S.E/ , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, RCW 63.30.780 (RUUPA locate-agreement disclosure rules), https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.30.780 , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, N.Y. RPTL § 1196 (45-day surplus determination), https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/RPT/1196 , 2026-06-01}
- {statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-38-111 (overbid recovery agreement unenforceable; inducing = Class 2 misdemeanor), https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2022/title-38/article-38/part-1/section-38-38-111/ , 2026-06-01}
- {summary, Tyler holding corroboration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_v._Hennepin_County , 2026-06-01}
All remaining statutory values in the 50-state table are summarized from the
corresponding jurisdictions/<state>.md Module 3 third_party_recovery field,
which carries its own primary-source source_urls. Cells marked ⚠ are
needs_verification on the jurisdiction page and must be confirmed against a
primary source before any statement of law is relied upon. Never fabricate a
fee cap, statute section, or case — where this page says “none located,” it
means no primary source establishing the rule was retrieved, not that no rule
exists.
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes statutes and cases that change frequently and vary by county practice. Verify every citation against the linked primary source and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified: 2026-06-01.