dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
877-475-8100
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440

DannLaw seeks immediate Order to block Browns stadium funding scheme as class action suit against Haslam giveaway is litigated

In the News

By

In a class action lawsuit filed on October 2, 2025. DannLaw attorneys asked the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to declare that the proposed scheme to utilize $600,000,000 from the state’s Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund (UFTF) to construct a new privately owned stadium for the billionaire owners of the Cleveland Browns violates both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

Today, the legal team, which now includes the Palmer Law Group, asked Judge Algernon L. Marbley who is presiding over the case to issue a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction that will stop the giveaway to the Haslam family as the class action suit is litigated. Both the class action suit and the motion were filed on behalf of people whose money is currently held in trust by the UFTF. Defendants named in the suit and motion are Ohio Director of Commerce Sheryl Maxfield, Akil Hardy, Superintendent of the Division of Unclaimed Funds, state Treasurer Robert Sprague, and Joy Bledsoe, Executive Director of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission.

In their motion, the attorneys argue a TRO/injunction is warranted because the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if their property is seized without notice, due process, or compensation as the case wends its way through the judicial system. They also reiterate that the plan to use public funds to subsidize construction of the proposed Browns stadium runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution, and breaches the state’s fiduciary duty to safeguard unclaimed funds and reunite them with their owners.

In support of the motion for a TRO the attorneys submitted a declaration from Information Technology expert Jan Peters who says Ohio’s unclaimed funds website makes it difficult in not impossible for people to locate their unclaimed property. Her declaration directly refutes the state’s contention that people can easily trace and obtain funds held in the UFTF.

“This is one of the most blatantly unconstitutional takings we have seen,” former State Representative Jeffrey A. Crossman, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs commented. “Ohio has no right to pilfer people’s property and use it to build a playground for a billionaire.  We are asking the Court to take a prudent, reasonable, and just step to protect the potential victims of this scheme before they are harmed.”

“Ohio has a legal and moral obligation to safeguard these funds,” former Ohio Attorney General and DannLaw founder Marc E. Dann said. “Instead, the majority in the legislature and the governor have decided to loot them and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to their wealthy campaign contributors who just happen to be among the richest people in the United States. This is a textbook example of the corrupt pay-to-play culture that has perverted state government for far too long.  Our goal is to stop them, derail this unconscionable scheme and protect people’s property.”

DannLaw filed a similar against the funding scheme in Franklin County Common Pleas Court in July of this year but decided to dismiss it and refile the action in Federal Court. “We believe the federal court will be more objective and less political as they analyze these serous and obvious violations of the Ohio and US constitutions,” Dann explained.

The case is Bleick et al. v. Maxfield et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01140

View and download the motion for TRO/restraining order here.

View and download Jan Peters’ declaration here.

View and download the class action suit filed in Federal Court here.

For more information please contact:

Jeffrey A. Crossman – DannLaw
[email protected] | (216) 373-0539

Marc E. Dann – DannLaw
[email protected] | (216) 373-0539

By

We’re incredibly honored to be recognized by the Time Well Spent Honor Society for contributing over 500 cumulative hours in our pro bono service journey!

This honor reflects our commitment that goes beyond our business—one rooted in purpose, responsibility, and the belief that our work can be a force for the underdog.

We have a strong and diverse team ready to support those who need it most, and we are endlessly grateful to every member who made this milestone possible.

Time Well Spent Honor Society Award. Over 500 hours of pro bono service, cases
Time Well Spent Honor Society Award. Over 500 hours of pro bono service, cases.

By

A group of current and former employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking to address longstanding disparities in compensation and resources between public defenders and prosecutors in Montgomery County. The lawsuit, brought by Michael Dailey, William Ehrstine, Susan Souther, Travis Dunnington, Paul Nerone, Cynthia Packet, and Debra Burs on behalf of all similarly situated employees, names Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Defender Commission as defendants.

The complaint alleges that Montgomery County and its Public Defender Commission have systematically failed to provide public defenders with salaries, benefits, and resources that are substantially equivalent to those provided to prosecutors, as required by Ohio law and the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The plaintiffs assert that this disparity violates their rights to equal protection and due process, as well as the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants.

According to the complaint, Ohio Administrative Code Section 120-1-06 mandates that public defender attorneys’ salaries “shall approximate and be in parity with the compensation received by prosecutors with comparable years in practice and experience.” The lawsuit details significant gaps in pay and bonuses between the two offices, with prosecutors receiving far greater compensation and additional year-end bonuses, while public defenders are left behind.

The plaintiffs seek damages, back pay, and injunctive relief to compel Montgomery County to comply with its legal obligations and ensure parity in pay and resources between public defenders and prosecutors. The complaint also requests a writ of mandamus requiring the County to take all necessary actions to bring the Public Defender’s Office into compliance with state law and constitutional mandates.

“This lawsuit is about fairness, equality, and the right of every person—regardless of income—to have access to effective legal representation,” said Nicole M. Lundrigan, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Montgomery County’s failure to provide public defenders with equal pay and resources not only harms dedicated public servants but also undermines the constitutional rights of the people they serve.”

“We intend to vindicate the constitutional rights of both criminal defendants in Montgomery County and the lawyers and support staff represent them” added Marc Dann of co-counsel Dann Law

The class action seeks to represent all past and present employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender from 2015 to the present.

By

DannLaw filed a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on Monday, July 7, 2025 seeking an injunction to stop the State of Ohio from confiscating more than $1,000,000,000 from the state’s Unclaimed Funds Account (UFA) and using the money to underwrite a proposed new stadium for the Cleveland Browns as well as other privately owned sports facilities. A scheme mandating the seizure and diversion of UFA funds was included in the recently enacted state budget.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three named Ohio residents and a class that includes “All individuals and entities whose funds are being held in the Ohio Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund as of June 30, 2025” alleges that the seizure of unclaimed funds held in trust for Ohioans violates multiple provisions of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, including the Takings Clause, due process protections, and Ohio’s strong constitutional guarantee that private property “shall ever be held inviolate.”

“The State of Ohio intends to steal over a billion dollars in private property from its citizens and pour it into the pockets of Jimmy Haslam, one of America’s richest men,” Jeffrey A. Crossman, lead counsel and former Ohio legislator said. “Everyday Ohioans are rightfully outraged by this blatant abuse of power. The government can’t just take someone’s property and give it to someone else.  This type of outrageous behavior ignited the American revolution 250 years ago. Unfortunately, the majority in the General Assembly and the governor are ignoring the lesson King George learned at Bunker Hill.”

According to former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, numerous Ohioans and nationally renowned Constitutional scholars have contacted him since the DannLaw legal team announced on June 25 that they would file suit if the proposed looting of the UFA became law.  “Their message has been loud and clear: what the State is doing isn’t just wrong—it violates the very reason we have constitutions and laws,” Dann said.

“The provisions of Ohio’s Constitution that protect private property from being taken for private use are not a suggestion, they are a command,” Dann continued. The legislature and governor have no authority to convert Ohioan’s private property into a slush fund that can be used to subsidize a billionaire campaign contributor’s private football stadium. We’re filing this case because the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy and because no one, no matter how wealthy or politically connected they may be, can be allowed to blithely ignore the Constitution.”

Dann also noted that even Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost opposes the UFS scheme and urged Governor Mike DeWine to line item veto the proposal: “I oppose not only this funding mechanism but also its intent: billionaires should finance their own stadiums – full stop. Ohio taxpayers cannot be left on the side lines while the wealthiest score with public money.”

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the State from enforcing the new law, prevent the reallocation of unclaimed funds, and compel the State to notify all affected property owners.

A copy of the complaint and exhibits may be viewed and downloaded here: Skierski Al 2025 07 07 Browns Stadium Complaint FINAL

By

Ohio BankruptcyCOLUMBUS, OH — Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former State Representative Jeffrey A. Crossman announced today that they will challenge the legality of using $600 million from Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Trust (UFT) to finance a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns if the scheme is included in the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 biennial budget and signed into law.

Dann and Crossman said they have drafted and will immediately file a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on behalf of three Cuyahoga County residents and all others with funds held in the UFT if the General Assembly and Governor Mike DeWine move forward with what the attorneys say is an “unconscionable, unconstitutional, and blatantly illegal confiscation of Ohioans’ private property .” View/download the draft complaint here: Browns Stadium Complaint

The draft complaint asserts that the State of Ohio intends to confiscate Ohioans’ “unclaimed funds” and divert them from their intended purpose—to be held and preserved for the benefit of the rightful owners—to finance the construction of a private sports stadium for the Cleveland Browns and further alleges that the raid on the UFT:

  • Violates the Takings Clause set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution which says in pertinent part that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
  • Violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment which says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • Violates Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution which protects private property from being taken for private use or without just compensation.
  • Represents a breach of the state’s Fiduciary Duty to serve as a custodian of the funds in the UFC under the provisions of ORC 169. 01

“The majority in the General Assembly and the Governor may think it’s acceptable to pick the pockets of Ohio’s working families to reward billionaire Jimmy Haslam for his huge political contributions, but we think it’s fundamentally wrong. That is why we’ll be standing at the courthouse door ready to file this lawsuit when and if this unprecedented abuse of the public trust actually becomes law,” Dann said.

“The Ohio Supreme Court has been crystal clear: unclaimed funds are not state property-it’s private property.,” Crossman commented.  “This case is about protecting Ohioans’ constitutional rights and stopping the legislature from liquidating private property and turning it into a billionaire’s building fund. Ohioans shouldn’t have to race the clock to reclaim what’s already theirs.”

In addition to the legal arguments and settled case law protecting private property, Dann and Crossman cite a skeptical report issued by the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission in April 2025 that concluded the following:

“The academic literature on publicly funded sports stadiums is vast, covering many decades, sports, states and municipalities…The overwhelming conclusion from this body of research is that there are little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity. A second conclusion is that the level of government subsidies given for the construction of facilities far exceeds any observed economic benefits when they do exist.” View the LSC report here: LSC_Stadium_Analysis_Redacted

“The law is unambiguous: before the government can take someone’s private property, there must be a public use for the taking.  Here, there’s no public use — this is just a payout to a billionaire,” Crossman said. “If the legislature plans to fund luxury developments for the wealthy, they should find a legal way that doesn’t involve violating the fundamental property rights of Ohioans.  They need to go back to the drawing board or, better yet, tell this billionaire to pay for it himself.”

For additional information contact Jeffrey A. Crossman:  [email protected]; Marc E. Dann: [email protected], or phone 330-651-3131.