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.