U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 53— WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION › Part Part D— Preservation of State Law

12 U.S.C. § 5553

Preservation of existing contracts

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

This title,11 See References in Text note below. and regulations, orders, guidance, and interpretations prescribed, issued, or established by the Bureau, shall not be construed to alter or affect the applicability of any regulation, order, guidance, or interpretation prescribed, issued, and established by the Comptroller of the Currency or the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision regarding the applicability of State law under Federal banking law to any contract entered into on or before July 21, 2010, by national banks, Federal savings associations, or subsidiaries thereof that are regulated and supervised by the Comptroller of the Currency or the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, respectively.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Mellon v. Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp., 334 P.3d 1120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mellon v. Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp., 334 P.3d 1120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “After taking effect, those provisions “shall not be construed to alter or affect the applicability of any regulation, order, guidance, or interpretation prescribed, issued, and established by the [OCC] or the [OTS] regarding the applicability of State law under Federal banking…”
Susan McShannock v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, 976 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 12 U.S.C. § 5553 (provision of the Dodd-Frank Act mandating that the Act “shall not be construed to alter or affect the applicability of any regulation .”
Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Dodd-Frank Act § 1043 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5553 (July 21, 2010)). At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel said that the version did not matter here.”
Molosky v. Washington Mut., Inc., 664 F.3d 109 (6th Cir. 2011). “See 12 U.S.C. § 5553 ; see also Davis v. World Sav.”
Wieck v. CIT Grp., Inc., 308 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (D. Haw. 2018). “§ 5553 provides: This title, and regulations, orders, guidance, and interpretations prescribed, issued, or established by the Bureau, shall not be construed to alter or affect the applicability of any regulation, order, guidance, or interpretation prescribed, issued, and…”
McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “" 12 U.S.C. § 5553 (emphasis added). This provision on its face preserves the application of the original HOLA preemption scheme established by OTS at 12 C.”
Degutis v. Fin. Freedom, LLC, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2013). “12 U.S.C. § 5553 ; Copeland-Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.”
Cline v. Bank of Am., N.A., 823 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D.W. Va 2011). · cites it 2× “The court observes, however, that section 1043 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5553 , provides as follows: This subchapter, and regulations, orders, guidance, and interpretations prescribed, issued, or established by the Bureau [of Consumer Financial Protection],…”
Higley v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 910 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Or. 2012). “at § 1043 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5553 ). Thus, because the Higleys obtained their loan and signed the trust deed in 2008, the OTS regulations regarding preemption, 12 C.”
Pryor v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Pryor), 479 B.R. 694 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “Section 1043 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified as 12 U.S.C. § 5553 , has also been cited in recent preemption decisions as a statement of the intent of Congress that state law is preempted.”
Lewis v. Sovereign Bank, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “12 U.S.C. § 5553 (emphasis added). . While the CAC does not specify the date on which Plaintiff entered into the Deposit Agreement with Sovereign, it refers to withdrawals made on April 26, 2010.”
Kelly J. Mellon, Et ux v. Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “After taking effect, those provisions "shall not be construed to alter or affect the applicability of any regulation, order, guidance, or interpretation prescribed, issued, and established by the [OCC] or the [OTS] regarding the applicability of State law under Federal banking…”
Show all 17 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.