Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-529_1b7d.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

CANTERO ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL 
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BANK OF AMERICA, 
N. A. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 22–529.  Argued February 27, 2024—Decided May 30, 2024 

The  United  States  maintains  a  dual  system  of  banking.    Banks  with 
federal  charters—called  national  banks—are  subject  primarily  to 
federal  oversight  and  regulation.    Banks  with  state  charters  are 
subject to additional state oversight and regulation.  As relevant here, 
the National Bank Act expressly grants national banks the power to 
administer home mortgage loans.  12 U. S. C. §371(a).  When national 
banks  make  home  mortgage  loans,  they  often  offer  escrow  accounts 
designed to protect both the bank and the borrower.  Escrow accounts 
ensure  the  availability  of  funds  to  pay  the  insurance  premium  and 
property taxes on the borrower’s behalf.  Escrow accounts operated by 
national  banks  are  extensively  regulated  by  the  Real  Estate 
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.  RESPA was designed to protect
borrowers from “certain abusive practices” that were being carried on 
by  national  banks.    §2601(a).  But  RESPA  does  not  mandate  that 
national  banks  pay  interest  to  borrowers  on  the  balances  of  their 
escrow accounts.  New York state law is different.  It provides that a 
bank “shall” pay borrowers “interest” on the balance held in an escrow 
account  maintained  in  connection  with  a  mortgage  on  certain  real 
estate.  N. Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Ann. §5–601. 

In  this  case,  petitioner  Alex  Cantero  and  petitioners  Saul  Hymes
and  Ilana  Harwayne-Gidansky  obtained  home  mortgage  loans  from 
Bank of America, a national bank chartered under the National Bank 
Act.  Both contracts required the borrowers to make monthly deposits
into escrow accounts.  Bank of America did not pay interest on the bal-
ances held in either escrow account, but informed the borrowers that 
the New York interest-on-escrow law was preempted by the National