While state unclaimed property or escheatment laws, at least in theory, exist to help reunite people with their lost property, states are increasingly coming to view unclaimed property as just another revenue source. One recent example comes from Ohio where, in 2025, the state enacted into law the permanent escheatment to the state (i.e., no longer recoverable by the true owner) of unclaimed property that remained unclaimed for a period of 10 years from when it was escheated to the state. H.B. 96, 136th G.A. (Ohio 2025).
With permanently escheated property set to start being transferred from the state unclaimed property fund, as of January 1, 2026, to a different state fund for use in funding major sports facility projects, owners of unclaimed property currently held by Ohio brought a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that Ohio’s escheatment law violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and requesting that the Court enter a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order enjoining Ohio from transferring funds out of the state’s unclaimed property fund. Bleick v. Maxfield, Case Number 2:25-cv-l 140 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2025). While declining to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, finding that the plaintiffs had brought a valid Takings Clause claim that the federal courts have the authority to resolve, the Court also declined to enter a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
According to the Court, Ohio’s unclaimed property fund had over four billion dollars in unclaimed funds as of December 2025 and, under Ohio’s new law, nearly half ($1.7 billion to $1.9 billion) was estimated to be transferred out of that fund and into the Ohio Cultural and Sports Facility Performance Grant Fund on January 1, 2026. The Court explained that in order for it to enter a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) that an injunction would not substantially harm others; and (4) that issuing the injunction would serve the public interest.
The Court found that factors (3) and (4) “arguably cut both ways” and further found that “whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Takings Clause claim . . . is irrelevant” because the plaintiffs could not show irreparable harm, and the failure to show irreparable harm was “fatal” to the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. Under Ohio’s revised unclaimed property law, all owners of unclaimed property, even property held by the state for more than 10 years, are permitted to file administrative claims to recover their unclaimed funds until January 1, 2036. Finding that plaintiffs could still seek return of their property via an administrative claim until January 1, 2036, the Court concluded that “‘just compensation remedies are available’ to Plaintiffs, so injunctive relief is ‘foreclosed.’”
An important takeaway is that while the Court permitted Ohio to move forward with transferring permanently escheated property out of the state’s unclaimed property fund, it did so on the grounds that the property is not yet actually permanently escheated because administrative remedies remain in place for all owners regardless of when their property was escheated until 2036. Therefore, if other states take Ohio’s lead and try to enact permanent escheatment schemes where unclaimed property is taken for other use by the government, and no administrative remedies remain for the owner, such schemes would permanently dispossess people of their property without just compensation, and an injunction may be the appropriate remedy. Property owners should be prepared to fight for their rights.
[View source.]
