15 U.S.C. § 1633

Exemption for State-regulated transactions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Bureau shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this part any class of credit transactions within any State if it determines that under the law of that State that class of transactions is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed under this part, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Belini v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 412 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005).
Belini v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 412 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 7× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; see also Bizier v. Globe Fin.”
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; Belini v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 412 F.”
Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant Co., 522 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 4× “Also, 15 U.S.C. § 1633 provides that: The Board shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this part [ 15 U.”
David Gambardella v. G. Fox & Co., 716 F.2d 104 (2d Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1633 . Accordingly, the FRB in 1970 exempted from compliance with TILA and Regulation Z most classes of credit transactions in Connecticut, including open end credit accounts.”
McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 693 F.3d 207 (1st Cir. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (2011); 47 Fed.”
Rodrigues v. Members Mortg. Co., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D. Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 . Section 1633 of TILA provides: The [Federal Reserve] Board shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this part any class of credit transactions within any State if it determines that under the law of that State that class of…”
Sheedy v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 801 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015). “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1633 , the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has exempted some credit transactions in Massachusetts that are instead regulated under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140D, § 10(a).”
Botelho v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc. (In Re Botelho), 195 B.R. 558 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1996). · cites it 2× “CCCDA has a separate section for civil liability, which provides that: This subsection shall not bar a consumer then in default on the obligation from asserting a violation of this chapter, or any rule or regulation issued thereunder, as an original action, or as a defense or…”
In Re Permanent Surface Mining Reg. Litig.. Appeal of Peabody Coal Co., 653 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “” Appellant insists that the evident meaning of this section is that the Secretary may set out “mechanical and procedural provisions” governing formal aspects of the submission and approval process.”
Philibotte v. Nisource Corp. Servs. Co., 793 F.3d 159 (1st Cir. 2015). “2005) (explaining that Massachusetts has been granted an exemption that displaces “federal [TILA] law in favor of state [TILA] law”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 (b)(2).”
Sovereign Bank v. Sturgis, 863 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D. Mass. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 1633 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.29 . In 1982, Massachusetts was granted such an exemption.”
Stephens v. Household Fin. Corp., 566 P.2d 1163 (Okla. 1977). “1977); 15 U.S.C. § 1633 and Regulation Z 12 CFR § 226 (1970).”
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.