Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation In the normal course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are at all times subject to pending and threatened legal actions, some for which the relief or damages sought are substantial. Although the Corporation is not able to predict the outcome of such actions, after reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, Management believes that based on the information currently available the outcome of such actions, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or shareholders' equity of the Corporation. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations in a particular future period as the time and amount of any resolution of such actions and its relationship to the future results of operations are not known. Reserves are established for legal claims only when losses associated with the claims are judged to be probable, and the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many lawsuits and arbitrations, including almost all of the class action lawsuits, it is not possible to determine whether a liability will be incurred or to estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case a reserve will not be recognized until that time. Overdraft Litigation Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against the Corporation and the Bank. The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s class certification order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition. On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the Court’s exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval. Merger Litigation Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the “Lawsuit”). The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens shareholders with all material information related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable relief. The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September 20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the settlement and has filed an appeal of the court’s approval of the settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal has been resolved. CRBC 401(k) Litigation Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709, asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from April 17, 2008 to “the present.” In April 2014, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Based on information currently available, consultation with counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations for a particular period. The Corporation has not established any reserves with respect to any of this disclosed litigation because it is not possible to determine (i) whether a liability has been incurred; or (ii) an estimate of the ultimate or minimum amount of such liability.

Litigation

In the normal course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are at all times subject to pending and threatened legal actions, some for which the relief or damages sought are substantial. Although the Corporation is not able to predict the outcome of such actions, after reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, Management believes that based on the information currently available the outcome of such actions, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or shareholders' equity of the Corporation. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations in a particular future period as the time and amount of any resolution of such actions and its relationship to the future results of operations are not known.

Reserves are established for legal claims only when losses associated with the claims are judged to be probable, and the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many lawsuits and arbitrations, including almost all of the class action lawsuits, it is not possible to determine whether a liability will be incurred or to estimate the ultimate or minimum amount of that liability until the case is close to resolution, in which case a reserve will not be recognized until that time.

Overdraft Litigation

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against the Corporation and the Bank. The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s class certification order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition. On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the Court’s exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval.

Merger Litigation

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the “Lawsuit”). The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens shareholders with all material information related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September 20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the settlement and has filed an appeal of the court’s approval of the settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal has been resolved.

CRBC 401(k) Litigation

Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709, asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from April 17, 2008 to “the present.” In April 2014, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Based on information currently available, consultation with counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations for a particular period. The Corporation has not established any reserves with respect to any of this disclosed litigation because it is not possible to determine (i) whether a liability has been incurred; or (ii) an estimate of the ultimate or minimum amount of such liability.