(a) Authority of national banks. A national bank may receive deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits, including issuing evidence of accounts, subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency and any other applicable Federal law.
(b) Applicability of state law. A national bank may exercise its deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning:
(1) Abandoned and dormant accounts;
3
3 This does not apply to state laws of the type upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson Nat'l Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944), which obligate a national bank to “pay [deposits] to the persons entitled to demand payment according to the law of the state where it does business.” Id. at 248-249.
(2) Checking accounts;
(3) Disclosure requirements;
(4) Funds availability;
(5) Savings account orders of withdrawal;
(6) State licensing or registration requirements (except for purposes of service of process); and
(7) Special purpose savings services;
4
4 State laws purporting to regulate national bank fees and charges are addressed in 12 CFR 7.4002.
(c) State laws that are not preempted. State laws on the following subjects are not inconsistent with the deposit-taking powers of national banks and apply to national banks to the extent consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. 517 U.S. 25 (1996):
(1) Contracts;
(2) Torts;
(3) Criminal law;
5
5 But see the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Easton v. Iowa, 188 U.S. 220, 238 (1903), where the Court stated that “[u]ndoubtedly a state has the legitimate power to define and punish crimes by general laws applicable to all persons within its jurisdiction * * *. But it is without lawful power to make such special laws applicable to banks organized and operating under the laws of the United States.” Id. at 239 (holding that Federal law governing the operations of national banks preempted a state criminal law prohibiting insolvent banks from accepting deposits).
(4) Rights to collect debts;
(5) Acquisition and transfer of property;
(6) Taxation;
(7) Zoning; and
(8) Any other law that the OCC determines to be applicable to national banks in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. 517 U.S. 25 (1996), or that is made applicable by Federal law.
[69 FR 1916, Jan. 13, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 43565, July 21, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Monroe Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 589 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 10× “21(D), and that Ohio garnishment law is explicitly exempt from preemption and the Banks' broad authority under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 (c)(4), which exempts state laws governing the "rights to collect debts" from preemption.”
White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
· cites it 12× “4002 states, in part: “The establishment of non-interest charges and fees, their amounts, and the method of calculating them are business decisions to be made by each bank, in its discretion, according to sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking principles.”
Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 653 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The Final Rule included 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 , which states in relevant part that ‘[a] national bank may exercise its deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning: .”
In re TD Bank, N.A., 150 F. Supp. 3d 593 (D.S.C. 2015).
· cites it 7× “” 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 (c). The resul *606 tant question operative wherever state law conflicts with federal law regarding a national bank’s authorized powers,* is whether that state law “significantly interferes” with the bank’s exercise of those-powers.”
Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “" ( 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 (b)(2)(vii).) The RAL process involves the creation of a special purpose savings account to receive the tax refund.”
In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 1 F. Supp. 3d 34 (E.D.N.Y 2014).
· cites it 5× “§ 24 (Seventh); (2) imper-missibly seek to regulate bank deposit-taking and operational powers as provided by 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 ; and (3) improperly impose conflicting state standards on the establishment of charges and fees and the method of calculating them as provided by 12…”
Veronica Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The requirement to make particular disclosures falls squarely within the purview of federal banking regulation and is expressly preempted: “A national bank may exercise its deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning,” among other things, “disclosure…”
Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs’ Claims are Not Preempted Under 12 C.F.R. 7.4007 or 7.4009. Similarly, Wells Fargo has not proven preemption under 12 C.”
In Re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 (b)(2). The OCC goes on to clarify “state laws that are not preempted” in Section (c): “State laws on the following subjects are not inconsistent with the deposit-taking powers of national banks and apply to national banks to the extent that they only…”
Montgomery v. Bank of Am. Corp., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Defendants contend that 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007 (b)(2) is the controlling regulation because it “expressly preempts efforts to impose state-law ‘disclosure requirements’ upon national banks.”
Walker v. People's United Bank, 305 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D. Conn. 2018).
“The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (hereinafter "OCC") regulations provide that "[a] national bank may receive deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 7.4007(b)(2) — 1 case
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.