COLUMBUS, Ohio — Attorneys are asking for a timeout — arguing in federal court Monday that the public's money shouldn't be given to the Cleveland Browns, especially without telling Ohioans.
From a few dollars to nearly $300,000 for a Northeast Ohio animal shelter, unclaimed funds contain money left behind.
It's money that attorney Jeff Crossman says belongs to its rightful owners — the people of Ohio and other
"Taking someone's property and giving it to somebody else, a private owner, for some other private use is unconstitutional," Crossman said in an interview. "It's a handout to the Cleveland Browns."
This summer, the state lawmakers decided to give the Browns a $600 million performance grant for their new Brook Park stadium using unclaimed funds. Ohio's Division of Unclaimed Funds currently oversees about $4.9 billion in funds, including forgotten bank accounts, utility deposits, uncashed checks and more.
RELATED: Ohio lawmakers settle on unclaimed funds to put $600M into new Browns stadium
To check for unclaimed funds, visit unclaimedfunds.ohio.gov.
Crossman asked U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. to prohibit the state from using the cash while the legal fight plays out.
"It's kind of similar to an eminent domain situation," Crossman said. "If they're going to take your house, they're supposed to send you notice and give you an opportunity to object. They're not doing that."
In testimony on Monday, Unclaimed Funds Finance Director Amy Schellhammer admitted that they have not provided any direct notice to Ohioans, nor is it listed on their website, that $1.7-1.9 billion in unclaimed funds will be taken on Jan. 1, 2026.
Witnesses on each side debated the efficacy of the website, with one calling it the equivalent of a "local dog shelter's" website. There were thousands of entries that the expert witness analyzed that had addresses that were possibly outdated, non-existent zip codes, and frequently misspelled names.
RELATED: Ohio is making it easier to grab unclaimed funds if you're owed money
The errors on the website were all due to people entering their information wrong to the banks or other holders of money, a witness for the defense said.
The state’s attorneys declined to do an interview, but previously, Senate President Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) argued that it's constitutional and that press coverage has helped raise awareness for the unclaimed funds process.
"Kind of having this as a PSA 'Hey, we have an unclaimed fund, go check, get your money out,'" McColley said in June.
Republicans argue that they are taking funds that have been unclaimed since before Jan. 1, 2016, and that this will help economic development.
RELATED: National experts raise red flags about Ohio lawmakers' plan to take unclaimed funds
"It's not just a Browns deal," Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland) said. "It is a setting aside of money from the unclaimed funds for other projects in the future, some that we don't even know about at this point."
That is exactly the problem, Crossman said.
"There are a lot of professional sports teams in Ohio, right here in Columbus, you have the Blue Jackets, you have the Bengals down the road, and there are minor league teams, and there are a lot of businesses that might have their hand out, too," Crossman said.
"You say that this sets a bad precedent," I said to Crossman.
"Terrible precedent," he responded. "I understand the legislature was trying to be creative, and they're pounding their chest and saying, 'Hey, we're not raising taxes.' Well, no, they're not raising taxes, they're just taking your property — and that's worse."
During the summary portion of the day-long hearing, the plaintiffs argued that the state was "money laundering," and the judge needed to issue the preliminary injunction because the defendants were unlawfully taking money without notification.
Defense attorney Aneca Lasley, representing the state, argued that there was no merit to the case, the law doesn't require notification, and the "passage" of H.B. 96 was enough notice. The public "is required" to be aware of what the legislators are doing, she added.
Judge Sargus went back and forth with each side, but told Crossman and his team that they had a "hill" to climb to get the injunction.
The judge said he was to determine if the law was constitutional, and "not here to decide if it's a good idea or not."
He may have a ruling as soon as Tuesday on whether the preliminary injunction will be granted, he said.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
