How to claim unclaimed funds before they go to the Browns
Why it matters: Attention is on unclaimed funds after Gov. Mike DeWine signed a new state budget last week setting aside $1.7 billion for a "Cultural and Sports Facility Fund," including $600 million for a new Browns stadium.
The move comes with an unprecedented change in state law that has generated controversy and legal questions.
Catch up quick: Banks and businesses regularly send unclaimed funds to the state, from places such as inactive accounts or uncashed last paychecks.
The Ohio Department of Commerce previously held this money indefinitely until owners claimed it.
But starting Jan. 1, 2026, any unclaimed funds reported to the state on or before Jan. 1, 2016, will be considered "abandoned and escheat to the state."
For funds reported after that date, Ohioans will have 10 years to file a claim.
Follow the money: The current pot is nearly $5 billion, meaning many people likely don't realize they're owed something.
The state recently launched a new online system making it easier than ever to search your name and upload required documentation.
Alissa submitted a claim in 2023, when it still required using old-fashioned snail mail, and earned about $28.
Between the lines: Department spokesperson Franklin Freytag tells Axios it's not unprecedented for unclaimed funds to be transferred elsewhere.
The 2017 state budget bill, for example, sent $200 million to the general revenue fund.
The intrigue: We asked DeWine spokesperson Dan Tierney what would happen to the new Cultural and Sports Facility Fund if a sudden surge of claims depletes the pot.
Tierney called it a "borderline impossible scenario" and noted the Division of Unclaimed Funds has "without exception, taken in more money that is paid out in any given year."
What we're watching: The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority will apply for some of the funds to renovate Nationwide Arena, executive director Ken Paul tells Axios.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
California redistricting vote begins with overwhelming support, Newsom pollster says
Newsom has called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. WASHINGTON ― California Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal aimed at creating five new Democratic congressional seats begins with overwhelming support ahead of a planned November referendum when voters would decide its fate, according to a survey conducted by his longtime pollster. The proposal is backed by 57% of California voters and opposed by 35%, the poll taken by Democratic pollster David Binder found, according to a report by Axios. Another 8% of voters in the heavily Democratic state said they were undecided. Newsom has portrayed his mid-term redistricting push as necessary to offset Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's pursuit to create five new Republican congressional districts in Texas. President Donald Trump has publicly lobbied for the gerrymandering in Texas to boost Republican chances in the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom last week called for a Nov. 4 special election on the new maps. The California state legislature, where Democrats have a supermajority, would first need to vote to put the measure before the voters. The poll found 84% of California's Democratic voters support the redistricting plan while 79% of the state's Republicans oppose it. The 57% in overall support for the redistricting plan is a jump from the 51% who said they backed redrawing California's congressional maps in a July poll. California currently has 43 congressional seats held by Democrats and nine by Republicans. The creation of five new Democratic-friendly districts could sway California's delegation to a 48-5 advantage for Democrats. Yet the move comes with risk for Democrats because it might create several competitive seats that Republicans could target. "I know they say, 'Don't mess with Texas,'" Newsom, widely considered a potential presidential candidate in 2028, quipped at a Democratic rally kicking off the redistricting campaign last week. "Well, don't mess with the great Golden State." California has an independent redistricting commission that is designed to limit partisan influence on the map-drawing process, but Newsom said the measure would allow a new process to draw maps that would go into effect for House elections in 2026, 2028, and 2030, before ceding power back to the commission to draw maps ahead of 2032. Redistricting in all states is required by federal law every 10 years following the release of new U.S. Census Bureau figures; however, Trump pushed Texas Republicans to jumpstart the process in the middle of the decade, setting off a cross-country redistricting fight. Redistricting efforts are also ongoing in Florida and Ohio that could benefit Republicans, while Republican-controlled Indiana and Missouri are also discussing redrawing their maps. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives at stake, with Republicans currently holding a 219-212 majority. Contributing: Erin Mansfield of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Federal SNAP changes could cut aid, hike costs
About 360,000 Illinois residents risk losing SNAP benefits under provisions of the " big, beautiful bill," which could also saddle the state with $700 million in additional SNAP costs previously covered by the feds, according to Gov. JB Pritzker's office. Why it matters: The cuts could have far-reaching effects on hunger as well as spending in the local economy. This year, Pritzker's office says, the new provisions could cost Illinois an additional $80 million just to meet administrative requirements at a time when the state is under intense pressure to bail out basic services. Zoom in: About 15% of state residents, or 1.9 million people, receive SNAP benefits in Illinois. The new rules require Illinois to expand work requirements (proof of 80 hours of work a month) to SNAP recipients who are: Able-bodied adults ages 55-64 Adults with dependents who are over 13 years old Adults who had been exempt under Illinois' 4.8% unemployment rate. New rules restrict the exemption to counties with unemployment of 10% or higher. Between the lines: Illinois can avoid the additional $700 million in SNAP payment responsibility if it reduces its "payment error rate" (PER) from 11% to under 6%. The PER measures underpayment or overpayment usually driven by administrative or applicant mistakes. It does not include fraud. Illinois has the 10th worst error rate in the nation, but is on par with most big states. The intrigue: Alaska has an error rate of 20% but Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski worked out a deal to exempt her state from the requirement to reduce it. What they're saying: "While the state government will be doing everything in its power to lower the so-called error rate, we cannot gloss over the fact that this provision was intentionally designed as a craven mechanism to deny states funding and feed fewer people in need," Pritzker spokesperson Matt Hill said in a statement. The other side: " We are incentivizing states to administer the SNAP program more efficiently and effectively, protecting taxpayers and prioritizing limited resources for those who truly need the benefit," Republican Rep. Darin LaHood tells Axios.
