Jacobs v. FirstMerit Corp.
2013 Ohio 4308
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Jacobs and Glavic opened a joint FM account and were enrolled in overdraft protection with $35 fees per overdraft.
- FM allegedly reordered debit card transactions using a high-to-low posting method, depleting balances quickly and increasing overdrafts.
- FM commingled debit transactions with checks, charging additional overdraft fees without disclosure of the manipulation.
- Account statements allegedly misrepresented posting chronology and owed overdraft fees that plaintiffs did not owe.
- Plaintiffs brought fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach-of-contract claims seeking disgorgement, damages, and injunctive relief.
- The trial court certified a class of Ohio FM customers; FM appealed, challenging the certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly certified a class under Civ.R. 23 | Jacobs argued rigorous analysis satisfied Civ.R. 23 requirements. | FM contended analysis was inadequate and the class definition was defective. | Rigorous analysis satisfied; however class definition unambiguousness required remand. |
| Whether the class definition is unambiguous and enforceable | Jacobs proposed a defined class tied to reordering overdraft fees. | FM argued the original definition was overbroad and not precise. | The defined class was overbroad/ambiguous; remand to modify the definition. |
| Whether common questions predominate under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) | Common misrepresentation and posting practices would resolve claims class‑wide. | Individual damages and reliance issues defeat predominance. | Common issues predominate; class treatment appropriate for fraud, contract, and related claims. |
| Whether the class action is the superior method of adjudication | Class action efficiently adjudicates many small claims with similar facts. | Individual actions would be feasible and preferable for some members. | Class action is superior method; supports certification pending class-definition modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard bounded by Civ.R. 23; common issues often predominate)
- Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 12 Ohio St.3d 230 (1984) (treats class-certification record as suitable for rigorous analysis)
- Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 712 (9th Cir.2012) (class period specificity aids certification in similar overdraft cases)
- Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A., 275 F.R.D. 666 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (limits and definitions crucial for class overbreadth in banking actions)
- Cope v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 426 (1998) (predominance aided by generalized evidence and written misrepresentations)
- Warner v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 91 (1988) (framework for Civ.R. 23 certification considerations)