[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13178 ____________________

ALIEDA MARON, LAWRENCE MARON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FLORIDA,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00255-RH-MAF ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13178 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 2 of 23

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13178

Before BRASHER, ED CARNES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: Under Florida’s Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, pri- vate property unclaimed for several years enters the State’s cus- tody, where it then accrues certain earnings that the State keeps and spends. The Marons—alleged owners of property held in Flor- ida’s custody—argue that the Act violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by authorizing Florida to take their property without compensating them for the earnings. The district court dis- missed the Marons’ suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that because the Act could have constitutionally escheated their prop- erty altogether, the State could keep custody of the property or re- turn it without any compensation, let alone compensation for the property and earnings. On appeal, the parties dispute both the mer- its of the takings claim, and the district court’s jurisdiction over it— specifically, whether the Marons had standing to bring their takings claim, whether the claim was ripe, and whether it was fully barred by sovereign immunity. After careful review, we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction over the Marons’ takings claim. But we cannot agree with the State’s and district court’s position on the merits. Accord- ingly, we vacate the court’s judgment and remand for further liti- gation consistent with this opinion. USCA11 Case: 23-13178 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2025 Page: 3 of 23

23-13178 Opinion of the Court 3

I.

We set out the factual and procedural background below, based on the Marons’ complaint and the text of the Act. Because the district court dismissed this case at the pleadings stage, we take the Marons’ “well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reason- able inferences in [their] favor.” Smith v. United States, 873 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2017). A.

The Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act governs Florida’s management of unclaimed property. Fla. Stat. § 717.101 et seq. Under the Act, intangible property—e.g., deposits, credit bal- ances, stocks—held by a bank or other holder is “presumed un- claimed” after the property’s owner fails to claim it within a few years, usually five, after it becomes payable. See id. §§ 717.102(1), 717.101(16), (18). When property becomes “presumed unclaimed,” the holder must deliver it to Florida’s Department of Financial Services, which administers the Act. Id. §§ 717.101(10), 717.117(