Simon Property Group, Inc. and Simon Property Group, LP, hereinafter referred to collectively as Holder, sells gift certificates and electronic gift cards for use at shopping malls which it owns and manages. Beginning in the seventh month after the sale of each certificate and card, a dormancy fee of $2.50 per month is assessed. The certificates and cards expire approximately one year after issuance. Plaintiffs, hereinafter Owners, are recipients and purchasers of gift cards and certificates which were sold from 2001 to 2004. On December 8, 2004, they brought suit against Holder for damages resulting from the dormancy fees and expiration dates, alleging violations of the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act DUPA, OCGA § 44-12-190 et seq. The complaint has four counts which incorporate or repeat those alleged DUPA violations and which assert claims of illegal contract, unconscionable contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 b 6, Holder filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The trial court denied the motion and granted a certificate of immediate review. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the complaint fails to state any claim based on DUPA violations, as follows: Construing its provisions according to their plain and ordinary meaning, the DUPA does not apply to the property at issue unless it has remained unclaimed by the owner for more than five years after it became payable or distributable. . . . As none of the cards or certificates had remained unclaimed by their respective owners for more than five years when the complaint was filed, the conditions leading to a presumption of abandonment had not been satisfied within the meaning of the DUPA. Simon Property Group v. Benson , 278 Ga. App. 277, 282 628 SE2d 697 2006. This Court granted certiorari to review that ruling. We hold that, although the holders of unclaimed property have certain procedural duties to locate and notify owners, the substantive provisions of the DUPA are inapplicable to Owners’ claims. The issue before this Court is not the fairness or even the legality of the dormancy fees or expiration dates. The contractual obligation created by a gift card or certificate is governed by the generally applicable contract law of this state. Violations of that law are, of course, subject to several potential remedies. The legislature may further define or increase the rights of purchasers and recipients of gift cards and certificates. Indeed, effective July 1, 2005, the General Assembly declared it unlawful under the Fair Business Practices Act to issue such a card or certificate without including its terms and conspicuously printing thereon any expiration date and the amount of any dormancy or nonuse fees. OCGA § 10-1-393 b 33. To the extent that Owners make claims which are independent of the DUPA, this action may still be viable. However, the sole question before us in this appeal is the applicability of the DUPA, and not any other statute or law of contracts.
The DUPA, which was modeled on the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act of 1981, “shall be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.” OCGA § 44-12-191. It “governs the disposition of property in the hands of a holder that has been unclaimed for a certain period by its true owner.” 1 Ga. Jur., Property § 11:20 Lawyers Coop. 1995. Specifically, a gift certificate is presumed abandoned, and is thus subject to the custody of the State, if it remains unclaimed by the owner for more than five years. OCGA § § 44-12-194, 44-12-205 a.
