On July 2, 2026, the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of the Texas comptroller’s plea on sovereign immunity grounds and dismissed Neiman Marcus Group’s claims for reimbursement of $915,157 in unredeemed merchandise credits that Neiman Marcus had reported and remitted to the comptroller between 2012 and 2019. Neiman Marcus asserted that the credits had been remitted in error and sought declaratory and ultra vires relief requiring both the return of the credits remitted and the prevention of future collection of similar merchandise credits as unclaimed property.
The court did not decide whether merchandise credits are properly reportable as unclaimed property in Texas or whether Neiman Marcus’s ultra vires theory could succeed on the merits. Instead, the court held that the claim was filed too late. Because the suit sought the return of property allegedly wrongfully retained by the state, the court characterized the claim as one for “taking or detaining the personal property of another” and applied the two-year limitations period in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003(a). The court also held that the claim statute of limitations started when the comptroller denied Neiman Marcus’s request for reimbursement on March 29, 2021—not after later negotiations or exhaustion of all efforts short of litigation—and therefore the August 9, 2024 lawsuit was time-barred.
Key Legal Issues and the Court’s Analysis
The substance of the claim controlled
Neiman Marcus framed its case as a declaratory judgment and ultra vires action, but the court looked to the “underlying nature” of the relief requested. Because the requested relief was the return of property allegedly held by the comptroller without authority, the court treated the claim as one for detaining personal property and applied the two-year limitations period in Section 16.003(a). In applying the two-year limitations period, the court declined to apply a four-year residual limitations period that could have applied under Section 16.004. The court chose the two-year limitations period because the substance of the claim, rather than its procedural label as a declaratory judgment action under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, controlled.
Accrual occurred upon denial of reimbursement
The court held that Neiman Marcus had all the facts necessary to seek judicial relief when the comptroller denied the reimbursement request on March 29, 2021. Continued correspondence and post-denial discussions did not defer accrual or extend the deadline to sue. The court specifically stated that “a party exhausting its efforts to resolve a dispute is not the standard for accrual,” rejecting Neiman Marcus’s argument that the accrual date for its claim should be October 2, 2023, the day it allegedly exhausted all efforts to resolve the dispute short of litigation.
The statute of limitations was jurisdictional and not an affirmative defense
Because the defendant was a state official sued in an official capacity, the court treated the statute of limitations as jurisdictional rather than an affirmative defense. As a result, the limitations issue could not be waived, could be raised for the first time on appeal (which was the case here—the comptroller did not raise the statute of limitations defense in its initial pleadings), and required dismissal once the pleadings established that the claim was untimely.
Several merits questions remain open
The decision leaves unresolved whether merchandise credits are reportable unclaimed property (we note that we interpret Texas law to exempt merchandise credits from unclaimed property reporting under the nonexpiring stored value card exemption), whether a holder may obtain reimbursement through an ultra vires theory if suit is timely filed—because the state has no authority to retain property over which it never possessed escheat jurisdiction—and whether any administrative exhaustion requirement applies to holder reimbursement claims distinct from owner claims under the Texas Unclaimed Property Act.
Observations and Recommendations for Holders
Act promptly after a denial. Holders seeking reimbursement or refund of property allegedly remitted in error should treat the comptroller’s denial as the trigger date for litigation planning. If judicial relief may be needed, holders should assume a two-year filing deadline from that denial and should not rely on ongoing discussions with the comptroller to preserve claims.
Consider protective litigation while negotiations continue. The decision makes clear that informal negotiations do not suspend accrual of the statute of limitations. If a material reimbursement claim is at stake, holders may need to file a protective action before the limitations period expires, even if administrative or informal resolution efforts remain active.
Evaluate reportability before remittance. The most effective risk-management opportunity may arise before property is reported and delivered. Holders with gift cards, merchandise credits, stored value products, or other non-cash obligations should evaluate reportability, supporting documentation, and potential defenses before remittance, rather than relying on a later reimbursement claim.
Frame claims with substance in mind. According to this court, declaratory judgment or ultra vires labels will not control the limitations analysis if the practical relief sought is return of remitted property. Future pleadings should consider and address limitations periods directly and be prepared to explain why the claim is timely under the two-year rule or why a different accrual date applies.
Monitor further developments. The decision is significant for holder reimbursement claims, but it does not resolve the merits of the underlying merchandise credit reportability dispute. Holders should monitor any petition for review, further appellate activity, and any comptroller guidance or audit-position changes addressing merchandise credits and similar products.
Please contact our team if you have specific questions about this decision or potential claims to reimbursement or refund of erroneously reported property to Texas or any other state.
AlstonUP
Stay informed on states’ evolving unclaimed property and escheat laws with AlstonUP. Our Unclaimed Property Team tracks proposed legislation on a national basis, actively monitoring every relevant bill and regulation from introduction to enactment to gauge their impact on unclaimed property holders. Visit AlstonUP to learn more and access our tools.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Unclaimed Property team.
You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.