12 U.S.C. § 3804

Applicability of preemption provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The provisions of section 3803 of this title shall not apply to any alternative mortgage transaction in any State made on or after the effective date (if such effective date occurs on or after October 15, 1982, and prior to a date three years after October 15, 1982) of a State law or a certification that the voters of such State have voted in favor of any provision, constitutional or otherwise, which states explicitly and by its terms that such State does not want the preemption provided in section 3803 of this title to apply with respect to alternative mortgage transactions (or to any class or type of alternative mortgage transaction) subject to the laws of such State, except that section 3803 of this title shall continue to apply to—(1) any alternative mortgage transaction undertaken on or after such date pursuant to an agreement to undertake such alternative mortgage transaction which was entered into on or after October 15, 1982, and prior to such later date (the “preemption period”); and(2) any renewal, extension, refinancing, or other modification of an alternative mortgage transaction that was entered into during the preemption period.(b) An alternative mortgage transaction shall be deemed to have been undertaken during the preemption period to which this section applies if it—(1) is funded or extended in whole or in part during the preemption period, regardless of whether pursuant to a commitment or other agreement therefor made prior to that period; or(2) is a renewal, extension, refinancing, or other modification of an alternative mortgage transaction entered into before the preemption period and such renewal, extension, or other modification is made during such period with the written consent of any person obligated to repay such credit.(Pub. L. 97–320, title VIII, § 805, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1547; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, § 472], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1237.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1983—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–181 inserted “(or to any class or type of alternative mortgage transaction)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Oct. 15, 1982, see section 807(a) of Pub. L. 97–320, set out as a note under section 3801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: First Gibraltar Bank, Fsb, & Beneficial Texas, Inc. v. Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., as Attorney Gen. for the State of Texas, 19 F.3d 1032 (1st Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

First Gibraltar Bank, Fsb, & Beneficial Texas, Inc. v. Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., as Attorney Gen. for the State of Texas, 19 F.3d 1032 (1st Cir. 1994). “The states were given a three-year period, during which to “opt out” of the Parity Act’s operation, 12 U.S.C. § 3804 , but the state of Texas does *1044 not argue that it did so.”

Black v. Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “(See 12 U.S.C. § 3804 .) The OTS has concluded that California did not opt out of application of the Parity Act (see OTS, interpretative letter (May 3,1996) p.”

Gawry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ohio 2009). “Accordingly, Countrywide argues that resolution of this defense requires individualized assessments regarding the status of the loan originator (see supra) plus a determination whether the originator is a qualifying “housing creditor” under 12 U.S.C. § 3804 (a). Id. Plaintiff…”

Nat'l Home Equity Mortg. Ass'n v. Face, 64 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Va. 1999). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C § 3804. During this time period, the Commonwealth of Virginia did not opt out of the Parity Act’s preemption provision and did not in any way indicate that it wished Virginia state laws to govern AMTs instead of the federal Parity Act.”

First Gibraltar Bnk v. Morales (5th Cir. 1994). “The States were given a three-year period during which to "opt out" of the Parity Act's operations, 12 U.S.C. § 3804 , but the state of Texas does not argue that it did so.”

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.