You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Wells Fargo Bank of Texas Na Bank of America Na Bank One Na the Chase Manhattan Bank Comerica Bank-Texas v. Randall S. James, in His Official Capacity as Texas Banking Commissioner

Citations: 321 F.3d 488; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1998; 2003 WL 245633Docket: 01-51298

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 4, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case concerns the preemption of the Texas Par Value statute, which prohibits banks from charging fees for cashing checks presented by non-account holders, by the National Bank Act (NBA) and related federal regulations. The plaintiffs, consisting of national banks including Wells Fargo, argued that the statute was preempted by federal law, specifically citing the authority granted under the NBA and 12 C.F.R. 7.4002(a). The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the banks, issuing a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Texas statute, declaring it null and void. Texas defended the statute as a consumer protection measure, but the court found an irreconcilable conflict between the state law and federal regulations, particularly the OCC's authority to allow banks to charge fees to non-account holders. On appeal, the court upheld the district court's decision, emphasizing the Chevron deference due to the OCC's interpretation of the regulation. The court concluded that the OCC's definition of 'customer' as including anyone presenting a check for payment was reasonable and within its regulatory authority. The preemption was affirmed under the Supremacy Clause, as the state law significantly interfered with the federally authorized powers of national banks.

Legal Issues Addressed

Chevron Deference to Agency Interpretation

Application: The court applied Chevron deference to the OCC's interpretation of its regulation, finding it reasonable and consistent with the regulation's plain meaning.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that the OCC is typically afforded deference in interpreting the law and its own regulations.

Interpretation of 'Customer' under Federal Regulation

Application: The court upheld the OCC's interpretation that 'customer' includes anyone presenting a check for payment, thereby allowing banks to charge fees to non-account holders.

Reasoning: Ambiguity exists regarding whether non-account holding payees qualify as 'customers' under regulation 12 C.F.R. 7.4002(a).

Preemption of State Law under the National Bank Act

Application: The court ruled that the Texas Par Value statute is preempted by the National Bank Act and relevant federal regulations, as it conflicts with the authority granted to national banks to impose fees.

Reasoning: The U.S. District Court sided with the banks, ruling that Par Value is preempted, issuing a permanent injunction against Texas Banking Commissioner Randall S. James from enforcing the statute, and declaring it null and void.

Regulatory Authority of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Application: The court affirmed that the OCC has the authority to interpret federal banking regulations, including the ability to permit national banks to charge check-cashing fees to non-account holders.

Reasoning: The court finds that the OCC acted within its delegated authority when it promulgated regulation 7.4002(a).