Michigan’s Latest Unclaimed Property Decision Raises the Stakes for Holders Under Audit

Michigan holders should pay attention to recent litigation involving the state’s audit and enforcement authority. With the Michigan Supreme Court declining to disturb the appellate decision in The Walt Disney Co. v. Eubanks / Dine Brands Global, Inc. v. Eubanks, Nos. 260291/360293 (Mich. Ct. App. 2025), the state’s unclaimed property framework appears to allow the state to treat an audit determination as more than the end of an examination process. Instead, the determination can serve as the basis for a separate, later-enforceable compliance obligation. From a practical standpoint, that means the lifespan of an unclaimed property dispute could extend far beyond the original reporting year and, in some cases, far beyond what many companies have assumed their record retention policies needed to support.

From an unclaimed property perspective, the most consequential aspect of this development is the uncertainty it leaves behind. Michigan’s courts appear to have confirmed that the statute of limitations does not simply stop running when an audit begins, but they also appear to have endorsed a second enforcement track once the state issues a determination. That combination creates a difficult and unresolved scoping issue: If some reporting years would otherwise have expired during a lengthy audit, are those years truly closed or can they still become subject to enforcement through the later determination? 

Until that question is tested more fully, companies should assume the state might take an expansive view. The result is a materially heightened risk environment for holders, especially those involved in long-running multistate audits or relying on standard tax-based retention practices rather than purpose-built unclaimed property records policies.

Arguably, Disney is not just a technical statute-of-limitations case; it is a warning that states are increasingly treating unclaimed property audits as multistage enforcement proceedings. As such, companies should no longer approach those examinations as routine document requests that eventually age out. Instead, they should build the record from day one as though every scoping issue, estimation assumption, and historical data gap could matter years later in a second phase of enforcement. That includes documenting objections, preserving legal positions, tracking what years and property types are being asserted, and evaluating whether the company’s internal narrative is strong enough to withstand an audit that may effectively last a decade or more.

This development could also resonate beyond Michigan. Although the Disney decision is grounded in Michigan law, many unclaimed property statutes share similar structural concepts, and states often look to one another when advancing audit positions. While other jurisdictions might not be able to automatically replicate Michigan’s result, it is likely that audit firms and enforcement agencies will be studying the outcome closely. That makes it important for companies with national filing footprints to reassess not only Michigan exposure but also whether their broader compliance frameworks are prepared for longer examinations, extended enforcement theories, and disputes over years they believed were closed.

The broader lesson is simple: For unclaimed property purposes, old exposure does not always become stale exposure. Michigan’s recent judicial developments reinforce that once an audit begins, the path to final resolution could be much longer, more complex, and more expensive than many holders expect. Businesses that respond now — with stronger documentation, clearer governance, and a more strategic defense posture — will be far better positioned than those that continue to treat unclaimed property as a low-visibility administrative obligation.