On September 12, the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a bank in a dispute over NSF fees. The plaintiffs alleged they were charged $35 NSF fees for debit card transactions when their accounts had sufficient funds but settled when the accounts were negative. The plaintiffs also alleged that they were impermissibly charged multiple NSF fees in connection with a single transaction. The plaintiffs argued the bank’s agreements for their accounts did not allow for such fees, while the bank maintained that their contracts with the borrowers unambiguously permitted the bank to assess NSF fees whenever the available balance was insufficient.
The appellate court reviewed five alleged errors by the trial court, including claims that the trial court misinterpreted the agreements, improperly allowed multiple fees on single items, and wrongly dismissed claims for breach of good faith and unjust enrichment. The appellate court agreed that it would be unreasonable for customers, based on the agreements’ language, to conclude that the sufficiency of funds is determined when the transaction is authorized, as opposed to when the item is presented to the bank for payment (i.e., settlement). Ultimately, the appellate court held that the agreements expressly covered the subject matter and explicitly authorized the fees, rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments and upholding the trial court’s judgment in favor of the bank.
[View source.]
