Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “National Bank Act”

2nd Cir. Holds NY’s Interest-on-Escrow Law Preempted as to National Banks

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that: (1) New York’s interest-on-escrow law is preempted by the National Bank Act of 1864 under the “ordinary legal principles of pre-emption,” Barnett Bank of Marion Cnty., N.A. v. Nelson, and (2) the amendments to the NBA in the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act did not change this analysis.

9th Cir. Holds No NBA Preemption for State Law on Escrow Accounts, TILA Escrow Account Rules Not Retroactive

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the National Bank Act (NBA) did not preempt California’s state escrow interest law, which requires financial institutions to pay at least 2 percent simple interest per annum on escrow account funds. In so ruling, the Court also held that the federal Truth in Lending Act provisions for escrow accounts, at 15 U.S.C. § 1639d, did not apply to loans originated before the 2013 effective date of the provisions. A copy of the opinion in Lusnak v. Bank of America is available at:  Link to Opinion. In July 2008, the…

Second Circuit Denies Re-Hearing in Case Holding Debt Collector Could Not Charge Usurious Fees or Interest

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently denied the defendant debt buyer’s petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc, as to its ruling (discussed here) that federal National Bank Act preemption applicable to the loan originator does not allow a non-bank debt buyer to charge interest in excess of state usury limits. In so ruling, the Second Circuit noted that, “[a]lthough it is possible that usury laws might decrease the amount a national bank could charge for its consumer debt in certain states (i.e., those with firm usury limits, like New York),…

More FDCPA Uncertainty When Collecting Interest on Purchased Debt

We expect certainty in the law, especially when it comes to a commercial transaction. A valid and enforceable contract should not become unenforceable simply because it was sold. And worse, it should not be unlawful for the buyer to enforce the purchased contract. But that is the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Madden v. Midland.  The facts are not remarkable. Ms. Madden applied for and received a credit card from Bank of America, a national bank. Bank of America transferred her account to FIA Card Services, also a national bank, who issued her a change…