Ohio’s recently enacted permanent escheatment law is now under legal scrutiny. The law allows the state to permanently claim unclaimed property after a period of ten years, effectively preventing the original owners from recovering their assets. Following the passage of H.B. 96 in 2025, property that remains unclaimed for a decade will begin transferring from the state’s unclaimed property fund to the Ohio Cultural and Sports Facility Performance Grant Fund starting January 1, 2026.
In response to this new legislation, a group of property owners filed a lawsuit in federal district court, asserting that Ohio’s escheatment law infringes upon their rights under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the transfer of funds. The case, Bleick v. Maxfield, was filed on December 9, 2025, and it raises significant questions about property rights and state revenue strategies.
The court ruled on the motion to dismiss the case, stating that the plaintiffs presented a valid claim regarding the Takings Clause. While the court acknowledged the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ concerns, it declined to issue a preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is necessary to justify such a request.
According to court documents, Ohio’s unclaimed property fund held over $4 billion in unclaimed assets as of December 2025. The new law is projected to transfer approximately $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion from this fund into the new state initiative aimed at supporting major sports facilities on January 1, 2026.
For the court to grant a preliminary injunction, it outlined four necessary factors: the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, the demonstration of irreparable harm, the absence of substantial harm to others, and the alignment of the injunction with public interest. The court noted that the last two factors “arguably cut both ways.” Ultimately, it concluded that the failure to prove irreparable harm was a “fatal” flaw in the plaintiffs’ request.
Ohio’s revised unclaimed property law allows individuals to file administrative claims to recover their assets until January 1, 2036, even for properties held for more than ten years. The court emphasized that “just compensation remedies are available” to the plaintiffs, making injunctive relief unnecessary at this stage.
Significantly, although the court permitted Ohio to proceed with the transfer of permanently escheated property, it clarified that such property is not yet permanently escheated since administrative remedies are still accessible to owners until 2036. This ruling sets a critical standard for other states considering similar permanent escheatment laws. If other jurisdictions attempt to implement such measures without providing adequate administrative remedies, they may face legal challenges as property owners seek to protect their rights.
As the situation unfolds, property owners in Ohio and potentially beyond should remain vigilant and prepared to advocate for their rights against state actions that could permanently dispossess them of their property without just compensation.
