Opinions of the United
1995 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-29-1995
Spellman v. Meridian Bank
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 94-3203
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995
Recommended Citation
"Spellman v. Meridian Bank" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 323.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/323
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 94-3203
___________
I. ORRIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated
v.
MERIDIAN BANK (DELAWARE), and its
successor in interest Mellon Bank (DE);
MELLON BANK, (DE) N.A.
I. Orrin Spellman, individually
and on behalf of the class of
all
others similarly situated,
Appellant
___________
No. 94-3204
___________
ERIC A. GOEHL
v.
MELLON BANK (DE)
Eric A. Goehl, individually and
on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated,
Appellant
1
___________
No. 94-3215
___________
VIRGINIA AMENT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
PNC NATIONAL BANK, a national bank
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-244)
SUZANNE CAPLAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
MELLON BANK (DE), N.A.
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-302)
SARA J. SZYDLIK; DONALD R. SZYDLIK, for themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
FIRST OMNI BANK, N.A.
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-330)
BARBARA S. THOMPSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
MARYLAND BANK, a national bank
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-346)
Virginia Ament, Suzanne Caplan,
Sara J. Szydlik and Donald R. Szydlik,
and Barbara S. Thompson, individually
and on behalf of the respective
classes they represent of all others
similarly situated,
Appellants
2
___________
No. 94-3216
___________
DAVID A. TOMPKINS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL CENTER
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-375)
DONALD R. SZYDLIK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
ASSOCIATES NATIONAL BANK (Delaware)
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-1025)
David A. Tompkins and Donald R. Szydlik,
individually and on behalf of the
respective classes they represent of
all others similarly situated,
Appellants
___________
No. 94-3217
___________
KATHLEEN A. DEFFNER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE, N.A. a national bank
and HOUSEHOLD BANK, a federal savings bank
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-0398)
3
BARBARA BARTLAM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION,
a national banking association
(D.C. Civil No. 92-cv-1427)
Barbara Bartlam and Kathleen A. Deffner,
individually and on behalf of the
respective classes they represent of all
others similarly situated,
Appellants
___________
No. 94-3218
___________
DAVID A. TOMPKINS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK (USA),
a Delaware Chartered Bank
David A. Tompkins, individually
and on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated,
Appellant
_______________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action Nos. 93-cv-868, 93-cv-878,
92-cv-244, 92-cv-302, 92-cv-330, 92-cv-346,
92-cv-375, 92-cv-1025, 92-cv-398,
92-cv-1427 & 92-cv-714)
___________________
Argued February 2, 1995
Before: SCIRICA, ROTH and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges
4
__________________
ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION
__________________
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dissent and concurrence
in the slip opinion in the above case, filed December 29, 1995,
be amended as follows:
1. Page 47, last sentence. Change parenthetical
following the citation to Sherman v. Citibank (S.D.) N.A. to
read:
(term "interest" as used in 12 U.S.C. § 85 does not
include late payment fees and does not preempt
application of state law).
2. Page 47, last sentence. Change parenthetical
following the citation to Copeland v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. to
read:
(term "interest" as used in 12 U.S.C. § 85 includes
late payment fees and preempts application of state
law)
3. Page 48, footnote 2, second paragraph. Change
parenthetical following the citation to M. Nahas & Co. v. First
Nat'l Bank to read:
(holding complete preemption applies to the usury
provisions of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§85
& 86)
4. Page 49, third paragraph, first sentence. Change
the first sentence to read:
Title 12, section 86, the National Bank Act's
civil enforcement provision for recovery of
excessive interest and impermissible loan fees
charged by national banks, is the exclusive remedy
for borrowers to enforce the terms of 12 U.S.C.
§85.3
5. Page 50, carryover paragraph, first line. Change
the parenthetical to read:
5
(noting the identity of language between the first
part of § 521 of DIDA and 12 U.S.C. § 85)
6. Page 50, first full paragraph, third sentence.
Change the sentence to read:
Title 12, section 86 and § 521 of DIDA, govern
recovery of impermissible loan fees from such
banks.
7. Page 51, third paragraph. Change parenthetical
following the citation to M. Nahas to read:
(finding congressional intent for complete
preemption based on Congress' creation of an
exclusive federal remedy in 12 U.S.C. § 86)
8. Page 52, footnote 5. Begin a new paragraph with
the sentence, "I understand the desire to interpret . . ."
9. Page 53, second paragraph, second sentence. Change
sentence to read:
We could not expect the Congress which enacted the
National Bank Act to have discussed the federal
question jurisdiction or removal implications of 12
U.S.C. §§ 85 & 86, since neither general federal
question jurisdiction nor general removal power
existed in 1864.8
10. Page 57, last paragraph, first sentence. Rearrange
the first sentence to read:
Against this backdrop, Congress enacted the
provision on usury in section 30 of the National
Bank Act of 1864, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85, 86.
11. Page 58, second paragraph, first sentence. Change
sentence to read:
The Supreme Court has described Congress' intent
in passing 12 U.S.C. §§ 85 & 86.
12. Page 59, first full paragraph, first sentence.
Change sentence to read:
Congressional intent can also be gleaned from
the fact that 12 U.S.C. § 86 provides the
exclusive remedy for usury claims against national
banks.11
6
13. Page 60, carryover paragraph, first sentence.
Change sentence to read:
Further, the remedy for usury in 12 U.S.C. § 86,
"preempts the field and leaves no room for varying
state penalties."
14. Page 61, first full paragraph, fourth sentence.
Change sentence to read:
Section 521 of DIDA was specifically intended to
have congruent scope with the National Bank Act
with respect to the coverage of 12 U.S.C. § 85.
15. Page 62, carryover paragraph. Change the
parenthetical following the citation to Copeland v. MBNA America,
N.A. to read:
(finding no complete preemption in 12 U.S.C. §§ 85
& 86)
BY THE COURT,
/s/ Anthony J. Scirica
Circuit Judge
DATED: January 12, 1996
7