01/07/26

In Blus v. Civista Bank, the Sixth District Court of Appeals delivered a significant win for Ohio banks by affirming summary judgment in favor of Civista Bank on claims challenging overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee practices. The plaintiffs alleged that Civista’s account agreements did not permit (1) overdraft or NSF fees on debit card transactions that were authorized when an account had a positive balance but later settled when funds were insufficient (the so-called “APPSN” theory), and (2) multiple NSF fees when the same transaction was re-presented for payment.

The appellate court rejected both theories, holding that Civista’s 2018 and 2020 account agreements were clear and unambiguous. The court emphasized that fee determinations are made when an item is presented for payment and settled, not at the time of authorization, and that the agreements expressly permitted NSF fees for each item returned unpaid—even if the same item is re-presented. Because Civista acted within the express terms of its contracts, the court also dismissed claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

The decision was not unanimous. A dissenting judge would have found the agreements ambiguous when viewed from a “reasonable consumer” perspective, noting that courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on similar contract language. That disagreement set the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to accept the case, arguing it raised issues of great public interest and that the Sixth District had adopted an outlier approach to interpreting consumer banking contracts. Civista countered that the case involved a straightforward application of settled Ohio contract law to specific agreements. On January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction, allowing the Sixth District’s decision to stand.

What This Means for Ohio Banks

It is important to distinguish binding precedent from persuasive authority. The Sixth District’s decision is binding on trial courts within that appellate district and highly persuasive elsewhere in Ohio. However, other appellate districts are not required to follow it and could reach different results based on different contract language or interpretive approaches. Courts outside Ohio—and even some Ohio trial courts—have treated similar overdraft and NSF fee claims differently, often finding ambiguity where Ohio’s Sixth District did not.

That said, banks can reasonably infer several things from the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case. First, the Court did not see a pressing need to resolve a conflict or announce a new rule of statewide contract interpretation. Second, the decision reinforces the importance of clear, detailed account agreements—Civista prevailed largely because its disclosures were thorough and internally consistent. Finally, while litigation risk remains in this area, Ohio appellate courts appear willing to enforce overdraft and NSF fee provisions as written, absent genuine contractual ambiguity.

If you have any questions or are navigating a similar lawsuit, please contact OBL General Counsel, Don Boyd, for additional information and resources.

Sources
• Blus v. Civista Bank, Sixth District Court of Appeals, Erie County, Decision and Judgment (Sept. 12, 2025).
• Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. 2025-1431.
• Appellee’s Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. 2025-1431.
• Supreme Court of Ohio Entry Declining Jurisdiction (Jan. 6, 2026).