Berry v. American Fed. Sav., 85CA0278
| Decision Date | 06 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA0278,85CA0278 |
| Citation | 730 P.2d 905 |
| Parties | 1 IER Cases 1203 Barbara BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS, Bruce M. Wellens, Stephen R. Stiles and Paul Clarkin, Defendants-Appellees. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Ranson, Thomas & Yukawa, Stephanie H. Yukawa, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sherman, Howard, Baker & Wendleken, Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, Sherman & Howard, M. Edward Taylor, Stephen C. Peters, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
In this action arising out of an employer-employee relationship, plaintiff, Barbara Berry, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, American Federal Savings (American Federal), Bruce M. Wellens, Stephen R. Stiles, and Paul Clarkin. We affirm.
Plaintiff was hired by American Federal as a part-time teller in early 1972. By January of 1980, she had been promoted to regional savings manager. In August 1980, plaintiff's supervisor, defendant Wellens, fired her.
Approximately one month before the termination of her employment, plaintiff and other employees received an employee manual, which included provisions regarding employment policy, counseling, and discipline. Plaintiff's claim was based entirely upon the provisions of that manual.
After her termination, plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging, among other things, that American Federal had wrongfully breached her employment agreement by terminating her employment without notice or good cause. In response, defendants filed a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal law, specifically the Federal Home Loan Bank Board regulation set out at 12 C.F.R. § 563.39, which barred her claims.
The parties attached affidavits and a copy of American Federal's employee manual and its charter to their briefs in support of or in opposition to defendants' motion. Consequently, the trial court chose to treat defendants' motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56 and 59, and entered summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Plaintiff asserts that entry of summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether 12 C.F.R. § 563.39 preempts her state law claim for breach of employment contract. The question is not one of fact, but one of law, and we conclude that the federal regulation does preempt plaintiff's claim and, thus, the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper.
The parties' affidavits and American Federal's charter establish that it is a federal savings and loan association governed by the rules and regulations of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. See 12 U.S.C. § 1464(a). Under the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. § 1464(a), the Federal Home Loan Bank Board is empowered to enact regulations to provide for the organization, operation, and regulation of federal savings and loan associations.
In Inglis v. Feinerman, 701 F.2d 97 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040, 104 S.Ct. 703, 79 L.Ed.2d 168 (1984), the court upheld a summary judgment against the plaintiff on his claim that his employment with a federal home loan bank was terminated in violation of public policy and in breach of an implied contract arising from the bank's personnel manual. Relying on 12 U.S.C. § 1432(a), which provided that such a bank shall have the power to dismiss officers, employees, and agents, the court held that the federal statute completely preempted any cause of action the employee might have had under California law.
The United States Supreme Court determined, in Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982), that federal regulations have no less a preemptive effect than federal statutes. While that case did not address the specific regulation in question here, it nevertheless held that a Federal Home Loan Bank Board regulation, which was applicable to federally chartered savings and loan associations, preempted all conflicting state laws. See also Haugen v. Western Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 649 P.2d 323 (Colo.1982). Indeed, as the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aalgaard v. Merchants Nat. Bank, Inc.
...EIB, supra, 633 S.W.2d 432; Alfano v. First National Bank of Highland (1985) 111 A.D.2d 960, 490 N.Y.S.2d 56; Berry v. American Federal Sav. (Col.App.1986) 730 P.2d 905; Ambro v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. (1986) 152 Mich.App. 613, 394 N.W.2d 46; Hawkins v. Peoples Federal Sav. & Loan A......
-
Weber v. First Federal Bank
...with the employer, all containing the regulatory language. Id. In reaching its decision, the court distinguished Berry v. American Federal Savings, 730 P.2d 905 (Colo.App.1986), which is a case relied upon by the circuit court in the present matter. The court Indeed, Berry based his claim o......
-
Dynan v. Rocky Mountain Federal Sav. and Loan
...and loan industry, Dynan was an employee at will and subject to termination at any time without cause. See Berry v. American Federal Savings, 730 P.2d 905 (Colo.App.1986). They then argue that, by virtue of the employment at will, they are free from any liability to Dynan. See Siebken v. To......
-
Hall v. Great Western Bank, B045945
...in the state court, and the action was then removed to the federal court for determination of damages. In Berry v. American Federal Sav. (Colo.App.1986) 730 P.2d 905, a Colorado court treated the preemption issue as a choice of law question, but applying federal law, dismissed the We find i......