Spellman v. Meridian Bank

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: December 29, 1995
• Docket: 94-3203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Opinions of the United 1995 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

12-29-1995

Spellman v. Meridian Bank Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 94-3203

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

Recommended Citation "Spellman v. Meridian Bank" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 323. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/323

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 94-3203 ___________

I. ORRIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

v.

MERIDIAN BANK (DELAWARE), and its successor in interest Mellon Bank (DE); MELLON BANK, (DE) N.A.

I. Orrin Spellman, individually and on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, Appellant

No. 94-3204 ___________

ERIC A. GOEHL

MELLON BANK (DE)

Eric A. Goehl, individually and on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, Appellant

1 ___________

No. 94-3215 ___________

VIRGINIA AMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

PNC NATIONAL BANK, a national bank (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-244)

SUZANNE CAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

MELLON BANK (DE), N.A. (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-302)

SARA J. SZYDLIK; DONALD R. SZYDLIK, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated

FIRST OMNI BANK, N.A. (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-330)

BARBARA S. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

MARYLAND BANK, a national bank (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-346)

Virginia Ament, Suzanne Caplan, Sara J. Szydlik and Donald R. Szydlik, and Barbara S. Thompson, individually and on behalf of the respective classes they represent of all others similarly situated, Appellants

2 ___________

No. 94-3216 ___________

DAVID A. TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL CENTER (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-375)

DONALD R. SZYDLIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

ASSOCIATES NATIONAL BANK (Delaware) (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-1025)

David A. Tompkins and Donald R. Szydlik, individually and on behalf of the respective classes they represent of all others similarly situated, Appellants

No. 94-3217 ___________

KATHLEEN A. DEFFNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE, N.A. a national bank and HOUSEHOLD BANK, a federal savings bank (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-0398)

3 BARBARA BARTLAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, a national banking association (D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-1427)

Barbara Bartlam and Kathleen A. Deffner, individually and on behalf of the respective classes they represent of all others similarly situated, Appellants

No. 94-3218 ___________

DAVID A. TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK (USA), a Delaware Chartered Bank

David A. Tompkins, individually and on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, Appellant

_______________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 93-cv-868, 93-cv-878, 92-cv-244, 92-cv-302, 92-cv-330, 92-cv-346, 92-cv-375, 92-cv-1025, 92-cv-398, 92-cv-1427 & 92-cv-714) ___________________

Argued February 2, 1995

Before: SCIRICA, ROTH and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges

4 __________________

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION __________________

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dissent and concurrence

in the slip opinion in the above case, filed December 29, 1995,

be amended as follows: 1. Page 47, last sentence. Change parenthetical following the citation to Sherman v. Citibank (S.D.) N.A. to read:

(term "interest" as used in 12 U.S.C. § 85 does not include late payment fees and does not preempt application of state law).

2. Page 47, last sentence. Change parenthetical following the citation to Copeland v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. to read:

(term "interest" as used in 12 U.S.C. § 85 includes late payment fees and preempts application of state law)

3. Page 48, footnote 2, second paragraph. Change parenthetical following the citation to M. Nahas & Co. v. First Nat'l Bank to read:

(holding complete preemption applies to the usury provisions of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§85 & 86)

4. Page 49, third paragraph, first sentence. Change the first sentence to read:

Title 12, section 86, the National Bank Act's civil enforcement provision for recovery of excessive interest and impermissible loan fees charged by national banks, is the exclusive remedy for borrowers to enforce the terms of 12 U.S.C. §85.3

5. Page 50, carryover paragraph, first line. Change the parenthetical to read:

5 (noting the identity of language between the first part of § 521 of DIDA and 12 U.S.C. § 85) 6. Page 50, first full paragraph, third sentence. Change the sentence to read:

Title 12, section 86 and § 521 of DIDA, govern recovery of impermissible loan fees from such banks.

7. Page 51, third paragraph. Change parenthetical following the citation to M. Nahas to read:

(finding congressional intent for complete preemption based on Congress' creation of an exclusive federal remedy in 12 U.S.C. § 86)

8. Page 52, footnote 5. Begin a new paragraph with the sentence, "I understand the desire to interpret . . ."

9. Page 53, second paragraph, second sentence. Change sentence to read:

We could not expect the Congress which enacted the National Bank Act to have discussed the federal question jurisdiction or removal implications of 12 U.S.C. §§ 85 & 86, since neither general federal question jurisdiction nor general removal power existed in 1864.8

10. Page 57, last paragraph, first sentence. Rearrange the first sentence to read:

Against this backdrop, Congress enacted the provision on usury in section 30 of the National Bank Act of 1864, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85, 86.

11. Page 58, second paragraph, first sentence. Change sentence to read:

The Supreme Court has described Congress' intent in passing 12 U.S.C. §§ 85 & 86.

12. Page 59, first full paragraph, first sentence. Change sentence to read:

Congressional intent can also be gleaned from the fact that 12 U.S.C. § 86 provides the exclusive remedy for usury claims against national banks.11

6 13. Page 60, carryover paragraph, first sentence. Change sentence to read:

Further, the remedy for usury in 12 U.S.C. § 86, "preempts the field and leaves no room for varying state penalties."

14. Page 61, first full paragraph, fourth sentence. Change sentence to read:

Section 521 of DIDA was specifically intended to have congruent scope with the National Bank Act with respect to the coverage of 12 U.S.C. § 85.

15. Page 62, carryover paragraph. Change the parenthetical following the citation to Copeland v. MBNA America, N.A. to read:

(finding no complete preemption in 12 U.S.C. §§ 85 & 86)

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica

Circuit Judge

DATED: January 12, 1996