Court Backs State Rule on Mortgage Interest August 15, 2005 in print edition C-2 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/15/business/fi-wells15 A federal appeals court in California ruled that the operating units of nationally chartered banks generally cannot be regulated by states, but that California’s limits on mortgage interest charges were nevertheless valid.
Friday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, in a case involving Wells Fargo & Co., follows a series of victories by big banks seeking to be regulated under federal laws rather than potentially stricter state laws. The decision affirms U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell’s 2003 ruling that the National Bank Act and regulations issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency preempt state regulation of the bank’s Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. unit. But it reverses Burrell’s finding that the state cannot stop banks from charging interest too early. California’s Department of Corporations and San Francisco-based Wells Fargo were not immediately available for comment. On Sep 25, 5:58 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > load of crap > > On Sep 25, 5:12 am, "mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ]" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Predatory Lenders' Partner in CrimeHow the Bush Administration Stopped > > the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers > > » > > By Eliot Spitzer > > Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25 > > > Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in > > consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of > > predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were > > misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to > > consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" > > rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with > > undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These > > and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on > > home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if > > left unchecked, threatened our financial markets. > > > Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the > > Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect > > American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align > > itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. > > > Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national > > crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I > > joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill > > the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, > > state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered > > into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in > > predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New > > York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. > > > What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course > > and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As > > Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of > > homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a > > resounding no. > > > Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, > > it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent > > states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which > > the federal government was turning a blind eye. > > > Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an > > obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the > > Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its > > mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 > > years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they > > were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few > > years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a > > tool against consumers. > > > In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC > > invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal > > opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby > > rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that > > prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection > > laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so > > egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, > > and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new > > rules. > > > But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even > > slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In > > fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible > > discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed > > a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation. > > > Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the > > banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending > > would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were > > trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair > > lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate > > credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have > > stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted > > in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our > > economy in a precarious position. > > > When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and > > recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent > > homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The > > tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged > > as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in > > their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power > > of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state > > legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on > > the side of consumers. > > > The writer is governor of New York.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
