Plaintiffs Mary Bleick, Todd Butler, Allen Skierski, and Gary Petrime challenged Ohio House Bill 96, which amended the Ohio Unclaimed Funds Act to require that funds held in the state Trust Fund for ten years or more escheat to the state. Under the statute, funds deposited before January 1, 2016, escheated on January 1, 2026, while funds deposited after that date escheat ten years after deposit. Although title transfers to the state upon escheat, the law provides owners a subsequent ten-year period to file a claim for an equivalent amount, including interest earned by the state minus administrative costs. The plaintiffs sued Ohio officials, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, arguing the statute provided insufficient notice. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the transfer of ownership, but the district court denied the motion, finding no irreparable harm. The plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Circuit Judge Kethledge, writing for the court, focused the analysis on the standard for granting a preliminary injunction, which requires a clear showing of likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and public interest. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, which is the threshold issue. Regarding the Takings Clause claim, the court noted that the effect of escheat is to transfer legal title to the state, but because owners have a ten-year window to recover the funds plus interest, they are not permanently deprived of their property without recourse. The court cited Knick v. Township of Scott, emphasizing that where a property owner has a way to obtain compensation after the fact, courts should not enjoin government activity. The plaintiffs' reliance on Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid was rejected; the court clarified that Cedar Point addressed whether a taking occurred, not the specific remedy available, and that a physical trespass is harder to remedy post-hoc than a monetary transfer. Regarding the Due Process claim, the court found the plaintiffs had actual notice of the state's holding of their funds through the Division of Unclaimed Funds website and annual notices, which afforded them an opportunity to object. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of irreparable harm sufficient to justify an injunction.
The decision affirms the district court's order, allowing Ohio House Bill 96 to proceed as written. Unclaimed funds held in the Trust Fund for ten years or more will continue to escheat to the state. Property owners must utilize the statutory ten-year post-escheat window to file claims for recovery of their funds plus interest. The ruling limits the ability of property owners to use preliminary injunctions to stop escheat proceedings when a post-deprivation compensation mechanism exists.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download