The decisions of the Superior Court to the contrary must, therefore, be reversed.
The fees at issue in the present appeals fall directly within the purview of the Comptroller's definition of "interest." The Smiley decision establishes that such fees can take the form of flat fees rather than percentage-based charges. It includes, among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient *119 funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.ġ2 C.F.R. § 85 includes any payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor for an extension of credit, making available a line of credit, or any default or breach by a borrower of a condition upon which credit was extended. The Comptroller, whose responsibilities include the enforcement of federal banking laws, had adopted the following regulation: In reaching this conclusion, the court deferred to what it deemed to be a reasonable interpretation of the term "interest" by the Comptroller of the Currency. In Smiley, the Supreme Court held that the "interest" charges permitted by Section 85 include flat fees levied by banks in connection with credit card accounts. 2d 25 (1996) held to the contrary hence, we reverse. In the present case, the Superior Court reasoned that because the charges in question were levied as flat fees rather than as percentages of the balances due on the accounts, the fees did not constitute "interest." The very recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Smiley v. Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. It has long been recognized that, under Section 85, a national bank can charge an interest rate in a foreign state higher than the laws of the foreign state permit, if it is authorized to do so by the laws of the state in which it is located. interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State. Section 85 provides that a national bank may charge "on any loan. In both cases the Superior Court held that Section 85 of the National Bank Act does not exempt out-of-state national *118 banks from compliance with our state statutes regulating such charges, where the charges are levied on a flat fee rather than percentage basis. § 85, out-of-state banks issuing credit cards to Pennsylvania residents must comply with Pennsylvania statutes limiting assessments for annual fees, late payments, returned (NSF) checks, and credit-limit violations. Both cases present the question of whether, under Section 85 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. The banks, appellants Bank One, Columbus, N.A.
These are consolidated appeals, by allowance, from orders of the Superior Court that were entered in two class action lawsuits wherein certain out-of-state banks were alleged to have assessed improper fees against Pennsylvania residents who are holders of credit cards that the banks issued. Lynch, Philadelphia, amicus Mellon Bank, Corestates.īefore NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ. Evans, Harrisburg, amicus Secretary of Banking.ĭaniel P. Rynd, Camp Hill, amicus PA Bankers Assoc. Kauffman, Philadelphia, amicus PA Bankers Assoc. Rublin, Philadelphia, for amicus Greenwood Chase.īruce W. Chimicles, Haverford, for amicus Bank Card Holders of America.Īrthur Makadon, Philadelphia, for amicus Mastercard.Īlan S. Goodemote, Harrisburg, for Consumer Protection. Scott Harshbarger, Boston, MA, amicus States of Conn.
Michael a mazaika trial#
Spector, Philadelphia, amicus Bankcard Holders of America.Īnn Miller, Philadelphia, amicus Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Card, San Francisco, CA, for amicus Consumer Action.Įugene A. Wilderman, Irwin Aronson, Camp Hill, for amicus Pa. Borish, Philadelphia, for Affinity Group Marketing.ĭavid H. Montgomery, Columbus, OH, for amicus Atty. Robert Griffin, Washington, DC, for amicus U.S. Lavelle, Jr., Philadelphia, for Bank One. In re CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) CREDIT CARD LITIGATION.
Mazaika, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees.
0 kommentar(er)
