U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS

12 U.S.C. § 1465

State law preemption standards for Federal savings associations clarified

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

Any determination by a court or by the Director or any successor officer or agency regarding the relation of State law to a provision of this chapter or any regulation or order prescribed under this chapter shall be made in accordance with the laws and legal standards applicable to national banks regarding the preemption of State law.

(b) Principles of conflict preemption applicable

Notwithstanding the authorities granted under sections 1463 and 1464 of this title, this chapter does not occupy the field in any area of State law.

(c) Visitorial powers

The provisions of sections 11 So in original. Probably should be “section”. 25b(i) of this title shall apply to Federal savings associations, and any subsidiary thereof, to the same extent and in the same manner as if such savings associations, or subsidiaries thereof, were national banks or subsidiaries of national banks, respectively.

(d) Enforcement actions

The ability of the Comptroller of the Currency to bring an enforcement action under this chapter or section 45 of title 15 does not preclude any private party from enforcing rights granted under Federal or State law in the courts.

(June 13, 1933, ch. 64, § 6, as added and amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §§ 1046(a), 1047(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2017, 2018.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1465, acts June 13, 1933, ch. 64, § 6, 48 Stat. 134; Apr. 27, 1934, ch. 168, § 11, 48 Stat. 647; May 28, 1935, ch. 150, § 19, 49 Stat. 297; Pub. L. 101–73, title III, § 301, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 313, which related to liquid asset requirements, was repealed by Pub. L. 106–569, title XII, § 1201(a), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 3032.

Amendments

2010—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 111–203, § 1047(b), added subsecs. (c) and (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Enactment and amendment of section by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1048 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1956–2019 · leading case: People v. First Am. Corp., 960 N.E.2d 927 (NY 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. First Am. Corp., 960 N.E.2d 927 (NY 2011). · cites it 4× “" Significantly, that statute states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prevent States from establishing requirements in addition to any rules promulgated" herein ( 12 USC § 3353 [b]; see also 12 USC § 1465 [b] [observing that HOLA "does not occupy the entire…”
Donald Lusnak v. Bank of Am., 883 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2018). “12 U.S.C. § 1465 (b). 22 LUSNAK V. BANK OF AMERICA imposed by this paragraph” or “as provided by contract.”
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 842 F. Supp. 2d 984 (S.D.W. Va 2012). · cites it 2× “The Dodd-Frank Act specifically aligned these two standards in 12 U.S.C. § 1465 (a), which provides that “any determination by a court .”
Cole v. Stephen Einstein & Assocs., P.C., 365 F. Supp. 3d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 2019). “2012) ; see generally 12 U.S.C. § 1465 (b) ("Notwithstanding the authorities granted under sections 1463 and 1464 of this title, this chapter does not occupy the field in any area of State law.”
Copeland-Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 800 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “Amendments to HOLA On July 21, 2010, Congress passed the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”
Akopyan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 215 Cal. App. 4th 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “5 , citing 12 U.S.C. § 1465 (a), (b).) They do not affect our discussion of the preamendment language of the regulations.”
Molosky v. Washington Mut., Inc., 664 F.3d 109 (6th Cir. 2011). “See 12 U.S.C. §§ 1465 (a), 5412(b). These provisions came into effect on July 21, 2011, and have no retroactive effect with regard to the issues in this appeal.”
Wieck v. CIT Grp., Inc., 308 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (D. Haw. 2018). “Given Dodd-Frank, Wieck argues that Silvas's preemption analysis does not apply at all because Dodd-Frank added 12 U.S.C. § 1465 (entitled "State law preemption standards for Federal savings associations clarified"), which includes a section providing "[n]otwithstanding the…”
McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “regarding the relation of State law to a provision of this chapter or any regulation or order prescribed under this chapter shall be made in accordance with the laws and legal standards applicable to national banks regarding the preemption of State law.”
Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 869 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012). “12 U.S.C. § 1465 (a), (b); see Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.”
Higley v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Or. 2012). “” Dodd-Frank § 1046 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1465 ). Dodd-Frank made clear, however, that it did not "alter or affect the applicability of any regulation, order, guidance, or interpretation prescribed, issued, and established by .”
Zink v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., 18 F. Supp. 3d 363 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). “See 12 U.S.C. §§ 1465 (a), 5412(b). These provisions came into effect on July 21, 2011, and have no retroactive effect .”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.