No. 81SC191Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided August 3, 1982.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Robert A. Lehman, for petitioners.
Ann E. Fox, Janene B. Duthie, Robert V. Stailey, Terry L. Christopher, for respondents.
Joseph A. Davies, Curtis W. Shortridge, for amicus curiae Joseph A. Davies, P.C.
Dale Tooley, District Attorney, Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy District Attorney, for the People of the State of Colorado ex rel. Dale Tooley, District Attorney in and for the Second Judicial District.
Fairfield and Woods, Patrick F. Kenney, Rocco A. Dodson, for amicus curiae Midland Federal Savings and Loan Association.
J.D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Attorney General, Mary J. Mullarkey, Solicitor General, Marshall A. Snider, First Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae J.D. MacFarlane, Attorney General.
Harvey Simon, John E. Gunther, of counsel: Thomas P. Vartanian, Ralph W. Christy, for amicus curiae Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw Harring, Victor L. Wallace II, James S. Bailey, Jr., Thomas T. Tornow, for amicus curiae Savings and Loan League of Colorado, Inc.
En Banc.
Page 324
JUSTICE ROVIRA delivered the opinion of the Court.
[1] We granted certiorari to review a decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals which affirmed the district court. Haugen v. Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, 633 P.2d 497 (Colo.App. 1981). We affirm. [2] The facts of this case are not in dispute and will be briefly stated. In 1977 Richard and Joan Larson (Larsons) executed a promissory note for the benefit of Western Federal Savings and Loan Association (Western), a federally chartered savings and loan association, in the principal amount of $46,000 with interest at the rate of 8.75% per annum. The note was secured by a deed of trust encumbering residential property. The deed of trust contained a due-on-sale provision that allowed Western to accelerate the unpaid balance of the note upon sale of the property.[1] [3] In 1979 Raymond H. and Lois Haugen (Haugens) purchased the property from the Larsons. In lieu of declaring the promissory note due and payable under the due-on-sale clause, Western submitted an Assumption and Modification Agreement to the closing agent conducting the transfer of the property. The Agreement increased the interest rate on the promissory note to 11% per annum and was signed by the Haugens and Western. The day after the closing, the Haugens asked that the interest rate on the note be adjusted to 9.75% per annum, relying on section 38-30-165(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Supp.) to support their request. [4] Western refused, claiming that as a federally chartered savings and loan association it was authorized by regulation[2] issued by the Home Loan Bank Board (Board) to invoke the due-on-sale clause and that the regulation preempted state law, particularly the interest limitation found in section 38-30-165(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Supp.). [5] The Haugens filed suit against Western, alleging that Western was bound by the provisions of section 38-30-165(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Supp.), and thus was prohibited from increasing the interest rate on their promissory note by more than 1% per annum. Western filed a motion for summary judgment contending that there were no disputed issues of fact and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [6] The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, holding that federal regulations permitting federally chartered savings and loan associations to use “due-on-sale” clauses in their mortgage contracts preempted state restrictions set out in section 38-30-165, C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Supp.).[3]Page 325
[7] The court of appeals, in affirming, held that the Home Owners Loan Act of 1933 (HOLA), 12 U.S.C. § 1464(a) (1976 Supp. IV 1980), delegated to the Board the power to regulate federal savings and loan associations. Further, it held that regulations enacted by the Board precluded the application of Colorado’s statutory 1% interest rate increase ceiling on mortgage assumptions to federally chartered savings and loan associations. I.
[8] Little benefit would be derived from an extended discussion or consideration of the arguments put forward by both parties since the issue in controversy has recently been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Page 326
concluded that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board’s regulations do preempt state regulation of federal savings and loans, noted probable jurisdiction. After review of the preemption doctrine, and the statutory authority of the Board to issue the due-on-sale regulation, the Court concluded “that the due-on-sale regulation is within the scope of the Board’s authority under the HOLA and consistent with the Act’s principal purposes.” It then held that in promulgating the due-on-sale regulation the Board intended to preempt conflicting state restrictions of due-on-sale practices.
[14] The facts and the issues of the case now before us are in no significant manner different than those in Fidelity Federal, supra. We conclude that the Board’s due-on-sale regulation precludes the application to Western of the interest rate limitation set out in section 38-30-165(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Supp.). [15] The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is affirmed.