A dispute over more than half a million dollars raised for children facing life-threatening illnesses has led one nonprofit to seek clarity from federal court regarding the rightful distribution of those funds. The conflict centers on whether money collected during an annual charity running event must be turned over to another nonprofit organization or if it can be distributed at the discretion of the fundraising group in line with its stated mission.
The 24 IN 24, a nonprofit charitable corporation based in Kirtland Hills, Ohio, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and related relief against A Special Wish Foundation Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 17, 2026. The defendant, A Special Wish Foundation Inc., is also a nonprofit charitable corporation headquartered in Gahanna, Ohio.
According to the complaint, The 24 IN 24 was founded in 2015 by Anna Dey as an endurance running challenge designed to raise money for children in northeast Ohio battling serious illnesses. Over time, the event grew from just 15 runners raising $13,000 in its first year to hosting 500 participants and generating substantial donations through individual pledges and corporate sponsorships. Since its inception, The 24 IN 24 reports having raised more than $3.2 million for families with sick children.
From 2016 onward, funds raised by The 24 IN 24 were directed to A Special Wish Foundation — Northeast Ohio (ASW-NEO), which acted as both beneficiary and partner in organizing and supporting the event. ASW-NEO handled logistics such as wish fulfillment—often trips to Disney World—volunteer coordination, and other operational support.
However, after the October 2025 race—the eleventh annual installment that reportedly generated $565,000—relations between The 24 IN 24 and ASW-NEO changed dramatically. Shortly after the event, ASW-NEO rebranded itself as Workshop of Wishes (WOW). On October 8, 2025, A Special Wish Foundation Inc. filed suit against WOW (formerly ASW-NEO) in Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Case No. 25CV008665), alleging improper use of trademarks and seeking control over assets previously managed by its former chapter.
Following this state court litigation, counsel for A Special Wish Foundation issued a subpoena to Anna Dey regarding information about the funds raised at the October event. In correspondence attached to the federal filing, Christopher Burch—counsel for A Special Wish Foundation—outlined his client’s position: “Our position is that…a charity such as your client cannot raise money stating…that the beneficiary is one specific organization only to later donate…to another organization even if [they] have a similar mission.” He cited state law prohibiting misleading solicitations and argued that since public statements identified A Special Wish Foundation as beneficiary during fundraising efforts—including use of its trademarks—the funds must legally be delivered to them.
The complaint from The 24 IN 24 disputes this claim and asserts there was never any contractual obligation requiring it to direct donations exclusively or permanently to A Special Wish Foundation or any particular affiliate. It states: “As an independent [nonprofit], the 24/24 retains exclusive discretion to award donations to the beneficiary(ies) of its choice in accordance with its mission statement.” The filing further claims that no representative from A Special Wish Foundation had participated directly in planning or executing any races nor contributed operationally beyond what was provided by ASW-NEO/WOW.
Legal filings indicate that while litigation between A Special Wish Foundation and WOW continues at the state level—with recent magistrate decisions addressing preliminary injunctions but not referencing The 24 IN 24 directly—the disputed $565,000 remains unspent pending resolution of these conflicts.
The central request made by The 24 IN 24 is for a declaratory judgment confirming it may distribute funds from its most recent event consistent with its established mission statement—which includes granting wishes through organizations serving local children—and not be compelled by legal threats or trademark claims from outside parties who did not directly participate in or organize their events. Additionally, they seek recovery of costs and attorney’s fees associated with defending their right to control distribution of these charitable contributions.
The plaintiff is represented by Evan T. Byron of Byron Legal LLC based in Independence, Ohio. As noted throughout filings attached as exhibits—including email exchanges between attorneys—the parties continue discussions but remain at odds over interpretation of donor intent and applicable law governing solicitation practices within charitable fundraising events.
This case is docketed under Case No.: 1:26-cv-00920-JPC.
Source: 126cv00920_The_24_in_24_v_A_Special_Wish_Foundation_Inc_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
