(a) General rule. Any State may apply to the Board to exempt a class of transactions within the State from the requirements of chapter 2 (Credit transactions) or chapter 4 (Credit billing) of the Act and the corresponding provisions of this regulation. The Board shall grant an exemption if it determines that:
(1) The State law is substantially similar to the Federal law or, in the case of chapter 4, affords the consumer greater protection than the Federal law; and
(2) There is adequate provision for enforcement.
(b) Civil liability. (1) No exemptions granted under this section shall extend to the civil liability provisions of sections 130 and 131 of the Act.
(2) If an exemption has been granted, the disclosures required by the applicable State law (except any additional requirements not imposed by Federal law) shall constitute the disclosures required by this Act.
(c) Applications. The procedures under which a State may apply for an exemption under this section are set forth in appendix B.
[46 FR 20892, Apr. 7, 1981; 46 FR 29246, June 1, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Belini v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 412 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005).
· cites it 7× “§ 1640 is preserved despite the Massachusetts exemption, see 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (b), it is much murkier, given the current drafting of these regulations, whether a debtor’s right to sue for rescission under federal law is preserved.”
Robey-Harcourt v. BenCorp Fin. Co., 326 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “She appeals, asserting the district court erred in (1) granting BenCorp summary *1142 judgment, and (2) ignoring Oklahoma’s exemption under Regulation Z, 1 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Laudani v. Tribeca Lending Corp. (In Re Laudani), 401 B.R. 9 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009).
· cites it 2× “I 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (a) ¶ 4. In these few states, as to certain TILA requirements, certain federal provisions have no force and creditors are subject to state requirements that are generally similar to the federal requirements.”
Rodrigues v. Members Mortg. Co., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D. Mass. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 . Section 1633 of TILA provides: The [Federal Reserve] Board shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this part any class of credit transactions within any State if it determines that under the law of that State that class of transactions…”
Serv. Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. J.C. Wink, Inc., 182 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “12 C.F.R. § 226.29 . If an exemption is granted, the disclosures required by the applicable state law (except any additional requirements not imposed by federal law) shall constitute the disclosures required by the federal act.”
Sheedy v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 801 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015).
“” Nevertheless, we examined it in an attempt to clarify Sheedy’s arguments and to avoid confusion regarding her statements that the federal law claims are related to the state law claims, that TILA relief that is time-barred can still be requested in recoupment,.”
Carye v. Long Beach Mortg. Co., 470 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Mass. 2007).
· cites it 2× “I 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (a) ¶ 4. In these few states, as to certain TILA requirements, certain federal provisions have no force and creditors are subject to state requirements that are generally similar to the federal requirements.”
Bryson v. Bank of New York, 584 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
“The model of clarity for this type of disclosure is to be found in the FRB Balance Computation Methods Model Clause, 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 , Appendix G-4 (1983), 1 Consumer Credit Guide (CCH) ¶ 3501 (1983), which reads: “(d) Average daily balance method (including current…”
Sovereign Bank v. Sturgis, 863 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D. Mass. 2012).
“§ 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 . In 1982, Massachusetts was granted such an exemption.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.