CLEVELAND — Three Northeast Ohioans with unclaimed funds filed a lawsuit on Monday afternoon against state officials, calling Ohio's plan to take legal ownership of people's missing money to help pay for a new Browns' stadium in Brook Park an "unconstitutional and unlawful misappropriation of private property."
The lawsuit was filed by DannLaw, a firm based in Lakewood. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status on behalf of thousands of Ohioans and are asking a judge to prohibit the state from using their cash while the legal fight plays out.
The complaint, in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, alleges that taking money from unclaimed funds for a stadium violates the state's role as a custodian and runs afoul of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions.
Read the full lawsuit:
"The State now intends to confiscate the private property held in the (unclaimed funds account) for the purpose of funding a private development, depriving the rightful owners of their property," the lawsuit states. "The State intends to do so even though it has been long settled that funds held by the State of Ohio in its 'Unclaimed Funds' account are private property."
The lawsuit goes on to say "the (unclaimed funds account) is not property of the State of Ohio to use as it deems fit. Moreover, unclaimed funds are not properly described as 'operating revenue' or a component of the State’s 'general fund' to be appropriated as part of the State’s budget."
The lawsuit seeks an injunction — a move to block the use of the unclaimed funds — and asks a judge to require the state to notify every person who has money at risk.
The court filing isn't a surprise. Late last month, after Republican members of the Ohio Senate pivoted to unclaimed funds as a way to provide a $600 million grant for a new Browns stadium, lawyers said they were preparing to challenge the proposal.
The attorneys behind the lawsuit are former state representative Jeff Crossman and former Ohio attorney general Marc Dann — both Democrats. On behalf of their clients, they sued the head of the Ohio Department of Commerce, the head of the state's division of unclaimed funds, the state treasurer and the executive director of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission.
They publicized those plans to reporters:
Read more: Lawyers plan to sue if state takes unclaimed funds for Browns
What are unclaimed funds?
Ohio has approximately $4.8 billion being held in safekeeping for its residents, with the funds coming from old bank accounts, uncashed checks, life insurance payouts and other sources.
Language tucked into Ohio's newly approved two-year operating budget changes the way Ohio safeguards those unclaimed funds.
Until now, the state held that missing money in perpetuity, while using some of it to plug budget holes and give short-term loans to affordable-housing developers — in the same way banks use your deposits to make loans, while keeping a certain amount of cash on hand.
Going forward, people will have only a decade to file claims. After that, the unclaimed funds, along with interest earned on them, will become the state's property.
Lawmakers directed the commerce department to pull money out of the unclaimed funds pool twice a year, starting on Jan. 1, 2026, and to put that money into a new fund for sports and cultural facility grants. The first deposit into that fund will be $1 billion, including the $600 million earmarked for the Browns.
The budget, approved by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Mike DeWine late last month, creates a grace period for people whose money gets taken by the state. They'll still be able to file claims through Jan. 1, 2036.
Lawmakers also earmarked $1 million a year to the commerce department for advertising and outreach about unclaimed funds.
In their lawsuit, Dann and Crossman argue the state isn't doing anywhere near enough to reunite people with their money. They also assert that Ohio is preparing to use the public's misplaced cash for what is fundamentally a private purpose — to benefit an NFL team.
"The state's plan involves taking private property for the purpose of benefiting a private business and, in particular, one person (Jimmy Haslam) who is more than financially capable of funding the construction of his own privately operated football stadium," the lawsuit says, alluding to the chairman of Haslam Sports Group and co-owner of the Browns.
Haslam Sports Group has said the new stadium, with a $2.4 billion price tag, will probably be owned by a quasi-governmental entity called a new community authority. They are still pulling together a mix of public and private money to pay for the project, with hopes of starting construction in Brook Park next year.
Litigation over the state's share of the tab could complicate that process.
News 5 has reached out to Gov. DeWine's office to get his reaction to the lawsuit.
Last month, before he received and signed the budget bill, DeWine told reporters that he wouldn't be surprised to see litigation over the unclaimed funds proposal.
“I’m sure that will be tested in court, if that’s what we end up doing – if that’s what the legislature ends up doing,” he said at the time. “So I’m sure that will be tested. But that’s nothing. A lot of things get tested in court.”
News 5 also contacted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office about the lawsuit and is waiting for a response. Crossman and Dann cite a recent letter from Yost in their complaint to bolster their argument that taking unclaimed funds will hurt Ohioans.
On June 27, Yost sent a letter urging DeWine to veto the budget language that would allow the state to stake its claim to missing money through a process called permanent escheatment.
Yost echoed the concerns of national unclaimed-property experts who say that taking ownership of unclaimed funds after a decade will make Ohio a national outlier — and be bad public policy.
But Yost focused on the principles. He didn't weigh in on the legal issues at play.
"Billionaires should finance their own stadiums - full stop," he wrote to the governor. "The $600 million handout for a single professional sports facility raises serious concerns about fiscal sustainability and fairness. While public-private partnerships can sometimes support community development, this provision risks prioritizing one private entity over more urgent statewide needs."
