12 C.F.R. § 7.1004

Establishment of a loan production office by a national bank

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. A national bank or its operating subsidiary may engage in loan production activities at a site other than the main office or a branch of the bank. A national bank or its operating subsidiary may solicit loan customers, market loan products, assist persons in completing application forms and related documents to obtain a loan, originate and approve loans, make credit decisions regarding a loan application, and offer other lending-related services such as loan information and applications at a loan production office without violating 12 U.S.C. 36 and 12 U.S.C. 81, provided that “money” is not deemed to be “lent” at that site within the meaning of § 7.1003 and the site does not accept deposits or pay withdrawals.

(b) Services of other persons. A national bank may use the services of, and compensate, persons not employed by the bank in its loan production activities.

[85 FR 83727, Dec. 22, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2015 · leading case: Goleta Nat'l Bank v. O'DONNELL, 239 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Ohio 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Goleta Nat'l Bank v. O'DONNELL, 239 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 24 (Seventh), 12 C.F.R. § 7.1004 (a),' 12 U.S.C. § 484 , 12 C.”

Alvin L. Phipps v. Guar. Natl. Bank, 417 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2005). “In this ease, the plaintiffs signed numerous loan documents in which they acknowledged GNBT was the lender that funded and made the loans and charged the fees.”

Patterson v. Citifinancial Mortg. Corp., 794 N.W.2d 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “12 CFR 7.1004. As did the court in Reardon , we conclude that defendant here is entitled to whatever protection might be afforded by the preemption doctrine, regardless of the fact that plaintiffs’ action is based on alleged misconduct by Concept One.”

Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC (2d Cir. 2015). “(quoting 12 C.F.R. § 7.1004 (a)). Here, the ‐23‐ MADDEN V.”

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.