Third-Party Recovery-Agent Rules by Jurisdiction

Reference table. Per-cell facts are aggregated from the Module 3 (third-party recovery) and Module 3b (claim assignability) sections of the 56 linked jurisdiction pages, each of which carries its own retrieved primary-source citations. Where a source page flagged a field needs_verification, that flag is carried here as ⚠ needs_verification — no value is invented.

Overview

This table compares how the 56 US jurisdictions regulate the third-party recovery agent (sometimes “surplus finder,” “overage recovery agent,” or “locator”) — the private party who, for a fee or by assignment, helps a former owner recover tax-sale surplus or excess proceeds. Four operational variables are tracked: the fee cap (a statutory percentage or dollar limit on what the agent may charge), licensing (whether a registration or professional license is required), assignment (whether the former owner may assign the surplus claim outright, versus only hiring an agent on a contingency-fee/agency basis), and the cooling-off period (a window during which a recovery agreement is void or unenforceable).

The dominant cross-jurisdiction pattern is a two-regime structure. Most states impose little or no recovery-agent regulation while the surplus is still held by the county/clerk/court (the pre-escheat phase), then apply a much stricter regime once the unclaimed funds transfer to the state unclaimed-property administrator. The strict regime usually derives from the (Revised) Uniform Unclaimed Property Act — typically a 10% finder-fee cap and a 24-month window during which any locator agreement is void, plus written-disclosure requirements. The recurring open question on many pages is whether that unclaimed-property regime reaches county-held tax surplus before escheat; where the source page could not pin this to a retrieved statute, the cell carries a verification flag.

A minority of jurisdictions regulate tax-sale surplus recovery directly by statute, and these are the operationally important outliers: Arkansas (10% cap by COSL rule), Indiana (10% cap with Attorney-General enforcement), Nevada (10% cap, NRS 361.610), North Carolina (lesser of 20% or $1,000, plus annual Treasurer registration *and* a private-investigator license), Texas (25$1,000 attorney-fee cap and an 80%-floor / 36-day / anti-solicitation assignment regime), Washington (a hard 5% cap, misdemeanor to exceed), Florida post-escheat (20% / $1,000 under Ch. 717), and Hawaii post-escheat (25%). At the far end, Oregon voids assignment-based recovery entirely (HB 2089), and Colorado makes recovery agreements unenforceable while the treasurer holds the overbid.

Comparative table

Notable clusters / outliers

Direct statutory caps (rare but decisive). Only a minority of jurisdictions cap tax-sale surplus recovery directly by statute or administrative rule: Washington at 5% (a misdemeanor to exceed), Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada at 10%, North Carolina at the lesser of 20% or $1,000 (uniquely paired with *both* Treasurer registration and a private-investigator license), and Texas with its 25$1,000 attorney-fee cap plus a separate assignment regime. Florida (20%/$1,000) and Hawaii (25%) impose caps only once funds escheat to the state unclaimed-property program.

The escheat overlay. A large cluster — Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and others — has no tax-surplus-specific cap but applies a (Revised) Uniform Unclaimed Property Act finder regime (commonly 10% with a 24-month void window; Iowa/Kansas use 15%) after funds reach the state administrator. On many of these pages the open question — flagged needs_verification — is whether that cap reaches county/court-held surplus before escheat. Mississippi is a confirmed exception: Miss. Code § 89-12-25’s 10% cap and 7-month bar apply only to property delivered to the State Treasurer — county-held § 27-41-77 overbids are not delivered to the Treasurer, so the unclaimed-property regime does not reach them during the county claim window.

Assignment outliers. Oregon is the strictest: HB 2089 voids any assignment of a surplus claim except protective assignments, foreclosing the assignment-based recovery model outright. Colorado makes recovery agreements unenforceable while the treasurer holds the funds (and criminalizes inducement). Oklahoma permits assignment only before the resale begins, after which assignment is void and only agency/contingency arrangements work. Texas requires assignments to pay the owner at least 80% of the claim, executed no earlier than the 36th day after deposit, with no solicitation. Montana and Utah use a flexible “unconscionable-fee” standard rather than a numeric cap.

Honest gaps. A substantial number of jurisdictions — including most territories (Guam, USVI, CNMI, American Samoa, Puerto Rico) and several states (Alabama, Delaware, DC, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Wyoming) — carry needs_verification flags across most cells because no recovery-agent-specific primary source was located. These are honest gaps, not asserted “no regulation” findings. Verified 2026-06-10: New Jersey confirmed no fee cap, no specific license, and no cooling-off period; New Hampshire confirmed no fee cap and assignment expressly permitted (RSA 80:90 II); Idaho cooling-off confirmed at 24 months (§ 14-5-1301); Nevada confirmed no license and no cooling-off; North Dakota licensing corrected to PI license under ch. 43-30 (not collection-agency); Arkansas confirmed no license and no cooling-off; Iowa confirmed PI-license (ch. 80A) required for unclaimed-funds locators.

▸ For Investors / Operators — Recovery-agent economics turn on these four variables. A statutory fee cap (or the 80%-floor in Texas) sets the ceiling on a contingency model; a licensing requirement (North Carolina’s PI license, Pennsylvania’s Treasury registration) is a barrier to entry; an assignment bar (Oregon) or timing rule (Oklahoma’s resale cutoff, Texas’s 36-day window) dictates whether an outright purchase of the claim is even available; and a cooling-off window (the recurring 24-month RUUPA rule) can void an agreement signed too early. Confirm the live statute on the linked jurisdiction page before structuring any deal, and watch the pre-escheat vs. post-escheat boundary.

▸ For Former Owners — In most states you can claim tax-sale surplus directly from the county, clerk, or court for free, without any agent. Where an agent is used, a statutory fee cap (5%–25% depending on the state) or an unconscionability standard limits what they may charge, and a cooling-off window may void agreements signed too soon after the sale. Check your jurisdiction’s row and linked page for the deadline and the free claim procedure.

Sources

Every per-cell value in this table traces to the Module 3 (third-party recovery) and Module 3b (claim assignability) sections of the linked jurisdiction page, each of which carries the retrieved primary-source citation (statute, regulation, or administrative rule) and a last_verified date. This table aggregates and does not re-research; where a source page flagged a field needs_verification, that flag is preserved here verbatim rather than resolved. The “Key citation” column lists the governing provision(s) for orientation only — consult the linked page for the full citation with retrieved source_url.

Landmark context: caps and assignment rules sit atop the tyler-v-hennepin-county baseline that surplus equity beyond the tax debt belongs to the former owner; several recovery-agent regimes (e.g., Oregon HB 2089, Colorado Art. 11.5) were enacted or reformed in that wake. See also third-party-recovery-rules and surplus-funds.

Legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and vary by jurisdiction; the fields above are aggregated from individual jurisdiction pages as of their stated last_verified dates. Fields marked ⚠ needs_verification were not confirmed against a retrieved primary source on the source page and must not be relied upon. Consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.