1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: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

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.

Recommended Citation

"Spellman v. Meridian Bank" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 323.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/323
1 

 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 
2 

___________ 

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 
3 

___________ 

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) 
4 

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
5 

__________________ 

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: 
6 

(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
7 

 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