Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

905 chars

For example, in de la Cuesta, a federal regulation permitted
the inclusion of due-on-sale clauses in mortgages (allowing
lenders to make the entire loan immediately payable upon
transfer of property), and expressly stated that it preempted
state laws to the contrary. 458 U.S. at 146-47. California
courts had created a state law doctrine to the contrary. Id. at
149. In addition to concluding that the federal regulation
expressly preempted the state doctrine, the Supreme Court
found that the two actually conflicted. Id. at 155. It held that
while compliance with both was not physically impossible
because the federal regulation only permitted, and did not
require, the conduct that the state doctrine forbade, the state
doctrine presented an obstacle to the federal objective because
the state courts “have deprived the [regulated party] of the
‘flexibility’ given it by the” federal regulations. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text