Issued by FDIC
1024.13—Relation to State laws.
(a) State laws that are inconsistent with RESPA or this part are preempted to the extent of the inconsistency. However, RESPA and these regulations do not annul, alter, affect, or exempt any person subject to their provisions from complying with the laws of any state with respect to settlement practices, except to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) Upon request by any person, the Bureau is authorized to determine if inconsistencies with state law exist; in doing so, the Bureau shall consult with appropriate Federal agencies.
(1) The Bureau may not determine that a state law or regulation is inconsistent with any provision of RESPA or this part, if the Bureau determines that such law or regulation gives greater protection to the consumer.
(2) In determining whether provisions of state law or regulations concerning affiliated business arrangements are inconsistent with RESPA or this part, the Bureau may not construe those provisions that impose more stringent limitations on affiliated business arrangements as inconsistent with RESPA so long as they give more protection to consumers and/or competition.
(c) Any person may request the Bureau to determine whether an inconsistency exists by submitting to the address indicated in §1024.3, a copy of the state law in question, any other law or judicial or administrative opinion that implements, interprets or applies the relevant provision, and an explanation of the possible inconsistency. A determination by the Bureau that an inconsistency with state law exists will be made by publication of a notice in the
(d) A specific preemption of conflicting State laws regarding notices and disclosures of mortgage servicing transfers is set forth in § 1024.33(d).