Fifth Amendment challenge to Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA); Policy of withholding interest; Standing; Kemerer v Michigan; Insufficient record for further review

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiff-Hendershot had standing to challenge Michigan’s unclaimed property program’s policy of withholding interest in some circumstances when returning property, but it was unable to determine more than that based on the existing record. Hendershot claimed that the State of Michigan holds between $200 and $600 of her money, providing a screenshot of its abandoned property website. She sued defendants-administrative manager and the administrator of Michigan’s unclaimed property program in their official capacities, alleging that the policy of withholding interest violates the Fifth Amendment. On behalf of a putative class, she sought declaratory and injunctive relief that would require defendants to pay her interest on her unclaimed property when returned. The district court ruled that Hendershot lacked standing to sue where she lacked a property right to any interest and thus, failed to show an injury. On appeal, the court held that her complaint met Article III’s standing requirement. She alleged that Michigan had earned interest that was rightfully hers, and asked the court’s “help to get it back. Her complaint thus alleges a classic pocketbook injury caused by the defendants and redressable by her requested relief.” The court noted it ordinarily could convert the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to one to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and “then ‘proceed to address whether [Hendershot’s] allegations state a claim.’” But the record did not allow it to convert the motion. The court found that her “bare bones” complaint, along with the screen shot, did not provide sufficient information to assess the merits of her claim. It could not determine if the “account was interest bearing when it was delivered into Michigan’s custody.” In addition, defendants’ briefing was “too perfunctory to affirm on alternate grounds in the record.” It also found that the district court did not do enough for the court “to treat its standing opinion as a merits conclusion.” It failed to “address the text of the UUPA or Michigan’s common law of abandonment,” and relied on an intermediate state court opinion, Kemerer. Intermediate “court opinions aren’t binding in federal court” and the court found there was “ample reason to doubt that either of Kemerer’s holdings accurately reflects the Michigan Supreme Court’s views.” Reversed and remanded.