Weiss

Weiss v. Washington Mutual Bank

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 72·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 111·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1272·53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 782·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1013
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2007No. B187834California2,293 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

The question on this appeal is whether a lawsuit challenging a federal savings and loan association’s prepayment penalty formula is preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA) and the regulations promulgated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). ( 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. §§ 560.2 , 560.34 (2007)). Our answer is yes.

FACTS 1

A.

In July 2003, Mitchell Weiss (and others included in our references to Weiss) borrowed about $4 million from Washington Mutual Bank and signed two 10-year promissory notes—one for $1.175 million plus interest at 5.33 percent per annum and with monthly payments of $6,546.74 (secured by real property in Los Angeles), the other for $2.85 million plus interest at 5.33 percent per annum and with monthly payments of $15,879.32 (secured by real property in Beverly Hills). A prepayment addendum to each note set forth a formula for calculating the “prepayment premium” due in the event *75 Weiss prepaid his obligations under the notes. Weiss negotiated the loans with Jeffrey Monahan, a Washington Mutual loan officer.

When Weiss read the prepayment addenda, he believed the prepayment penalty would be “below two percent” of the unpaid…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.