April 5, 2012 4th Circuit published opinion

Epps v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Epps bought a used car on credit. The purchase agreement stated it was governed by Maryland debt collection law. The contract was assigned to what is now JP Morgan Chase. After Epps defaulted, Chase repossessed the car and sold it. It did not comply with the notice requirements of Maryland law. Epps sued under that statute and the case was removed to federal court. The court dismissed the case holding federal rules preempted the application of Maryland law to debt colleting efforts of nationally chartered banks. The panel reversed holding debt collection was not covered by the preempting rules and was in any event allowed to be enforced under a savings clause in those rules. It rejected field preemption arguments as well noting the bank regulator explicitly refused to occupy the field. The panel finally held that Chase and thus JP Morgan Chase were bound as a matter of contract law to the term adopting Maryland debt collection law as part of the contract.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s