Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA)

California has a pair of “holiday statutes” that essentially state that whenever a legal or contractual act is required to be performed on a holiday, the act may be performed on the next business day without any adverse consequence. (Civ. Code, §§ 9, 11.) The question in this appeal is whether these state holiday statutes apply to a national bank’s credit card payment due dates. They do not. This is because these state laws are preempted by a federal law stating that a national bank may make non-real-estate loans without regard to state law limitations concerning the terms of credit; these terms include the schedule for repayment of principal and interest and the payments due. ( 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008 (d)(2)(iv) (2009); see 12 U.S.C. §§ 21 et seq., 93a (National Bank Act).)

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment rejecting the lawsuit of Miriam Miller et al. because it is preempted.

Background

This case comes before us as a third amended class action complaint, a demurrer to which the trial court sustained without leave to amend.

In reviewing a general demurrer sustained without leave to amend, we must determine whether, assuming the facts alleged in the complaint are true, a…