Can anyone affirm that the new Toledo city ordinance does NOT apply to a Federally chartered lending institution?

Sorry, from my reading of it, it does look like Federally-chartered institutions ARE covered (see def. of 'Lender').

Thank you for your reply, but respectfully, notwithstanding what the city council of Toledo has defined as a lender, I thought federal preemption rules would easily over-ride this ordinance. I was seeking confirmation of this. According my understanding of 560.2 and the history of preemption, such location specific disclosures are unenforcable on federal and national institutions.

15 states (so far, with 2 more pending) would beg to differ with you on that one. I know there are differing positions on this one - WAMU is the most vocal about not being subject to state or city regulations - so you may want to consult with your institution's counsel and perhaps your regulator for a ruling on your behalf. My institution's position at the moment is unless Federal law specifically contradicts the state/local legislation, we are most likely subject and going to comply. (We are a sub of a national bank.) Good luck!

Ohio has its own national champion; isn't it time it had its own thread on BOL?

I agree that lenders w/federal charters should be able to claim preemption. The OTS recently preempted state-wide predatory lending laws in NY and GA, so the "tide" is clearly turning in favor of preemption.

In addition, OH passed its own state-wide law in March 2002 (Sub. H.B. 386) that specifically prohibits local ordinances (like the one in Toledo). Currently there is a lawsuit pending against a City of Cleveland predatory lending ordinance (see the string on this in this forum) in which the issue of state-wide preeemption is an issue. If the Cleveland loses the lawsuit, this probably means that the Toledo ordinance is doomed.

I do, however, agree w/"exGovtBabe", at leaat to the extent that:

(i) until your federal regulator actually preempts the ordinance; and/or

(ii) an OH court rules that OH's state-wide predatory lending law "trumps" local ordinances,

whether or not any given ordinance is preempted is still an open question.

I wonder if a federal regulator woudl preempt OH's state-wide predatory lednign law? Probably no one will ask for this, at least initially. OH's state-wide law adopts the HOEPA amendments to Reg Z for all OH lenders, but only through the FRB's Oct 2002 amendment. Future FRB amendments can be unilaterally adopted by the state banking regulator, but, to the extent OH doesnt adopt a future FRB HOEPA amendment (or doesnt adopt it at the same time as the FRB), then federal preemption of the OH state-wide law may become an issue.

The Toledo Blade is reporting today that the same entity that sued the City of Cleveland over its predatory lending ordinance has filed a similar lawsuit against the City of Toledo.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20030205&Category=NEWS02&ArtNo=102050012&Ref=AR