# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 758: Letter clarifies OCC's position with respect to a Bank's ownership and use of real estate property that it has owned since 1924. (04/05/96)

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0758

## Section

- **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 758
- **Heading:** Letter clarifies OCC's position with respect to a Bank's ownership and use of real estate property that it has owned since 1924. (04/05/96)
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Letter clarifies OCC's position with respect to a Bank's ownership and use of real estate property that it has owned since 1924. (04/05/96)

## Text

Comptroller of the Currency
Administrator of National Banks
50 Fremont Street, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 545-5900, FAX (415) 545-5925
Interpretive Letter #758
April 5, 1996
January 1997
12 U.S.C. 29
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Dear [ ]:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversations of February 13 and 23, 1996, and
your letter dated February 23, 1996. It has come to the attention of the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC” or “Office”) that the [ ] (“Bank”)
recently leased to a third party a portion of a large piece of undeveloped real estate that the
Bank currently owns in [ ]. As a result, questions have been raised regarding the
Bank’s ownership and use of this real estate. Your letter, and the OCC’s files, indicate that
this Office has previously reviewed the Bank’s ownership of the real estate in question.
Specifically, a letter dated March 12, 1981 (“1981 OCC Letter”) from then Regional
Administrator Mr. M.B. Adams of the 13th National Bank Regional Office in Portland,
Oregon, to the Bank’s Board of Directors discusses the Bank’s ownership of this real estate.
Based on these various sources, my understanding of the facts is as follows.
FACTS
The Bank acquired a 160-acre property (commonly referred to as the [ ] tract) in 1924 in
satisfaction of debt previously contracted. The [ ] tract is about a thirty-minute drive
from downtown Anchorage and is located on the shore of the [ ] and at the foot of the [
] Mountains. When the [ ] property was acquired in 1924, the Bank was a
Territorial Bank, organized under the laws of the Territory of [ ] until 1950, when the
Bank converted to a national charter
t previously contracted. The [ ] tract is about a thirty-minute drive
from downtown Anchorage and is located on the shore of the [ ] and at the foot of the [
] Mountains. When the [ ] property was acquired in 1924, the Bank was a
Territorial Bank, organized under the laws of the Territory of [ ] until 1950, when the
Bank converted to a national charter. Throughout this period, consistent with Territorial Law,
the value of the [ ] property had been reduced on the Bank’s books to $1.00
and then subsequently charged-off. The property has been used as a picnic ground by bank
employees and customer groups since 1958 or 1959. It is my understanding that the Bank
does not currently operate a branch facility upon the property.

- 2 -
On June 21, 1976, the Bank changed the classification of the property from other real estate
owned (“OREO”) to bank premises, based on the increased use of the property as a recreation
area for employees and the promotion of bank business. The Bank views the property as a
valuable public relations and employee benefit tool. For example, in 1980, 46 organizations
requested and were granted permission to use the picnic grounds. Estimated usage of the
picnic grounds for that single year was approximately 9,000 people. In addition, your letter
mentions that various community groups use the picnic grounds, including the [
], [ ] Guild, churches, unions, high school reunions, and
boy scout troops. You state that the Bank benefits considerably from the goodwill brought by
this simple picnic area.
Recently, the Bank leased a 20-acre portion of the [ ] tract to [ ] Company
( “Co.”). This leased 20-acre portion encompasses a small hill, and [ Co. ] will pay a
royalty to remove the hill
uild, churches, unions, high school reunions, and
boy scout troops. You state that the Bank benefits considerably from the goodwill brought by
this simple picnic area.
Recently, the Bank leased a 20-acre portion of the [ ] tract to [ ] Company
( “Co.”). This leased 20-acre portion encompasses a small hill, and [ Co. ] will pay a
royalty to remove the hill. Although not stated in your letter, I understand that the small hill
contains granite deposits that may be removed by [ Co. ]. I assume the royalty payments that
the Bank may receive from [ Co. ] are based upon the amount of granite that is mined from
this hill. You represent that the mining of this hill will not interrupt the recreational use of the
remainder of the [ ] property. In fact, you state that the removal of the hill will enhance
the recreational value of the property. However, it is my understanding that the Bank has
received consumer complaints and been the subject of community group protests pertaining to
the proposed mining of the hill. Because of federal laws governing national bank ownership
and use of real estate, questions have arisen in this Office regarding the Bank’s ownership and
use of the [ ] tract.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As you know, a national bank’s authority to own real estate is governed by 12 U.S.C. § 29
(“Section 29"). Section 29 provides that:
A [national bank] may purchase, hold, and convey real estate for the following
purposes, and no others:
First. Such as shall be necessary for its accommodation in the
transaction of its business.
Second. Such as shall be mortgaged to it in good faith by way of
security for debts previously contracted.
Third. Such as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction of debts previously
contracted in the course of its dealings.
Fourth. Such as it shall purchase at sale under judgments, decrees, or
mortgages held by the [bank], or shall purchase to secure debts due to it.
ransaction of its business.
Second. Such as shall be mortgaged to it in good faith by way of
security for debts previously contracted.
Third. Such as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction of debts previously
contracted in the course of its dealings.
Fourth. Such as it shall purchase at sale under judgments, decrees, or
mortgages held by the [bank], or shall purchase to secure debts due to it.

- 3 -
But no such [bank] shall hold the possession of any real estate under mortgage,
or the title and possession of any debts due to it, for a longer period than five
years except as otherwise provided in this section.
Notwithstanding the five-year holding limitation of this section or any other
provision of this chapter, any [national bank] which on October 15, 1982, held,
directly or indirectly, real estate, including any subsurface rights or interests
therein, that since December 31, 1979, had not been valued on the books on
such [bank] for more than a nominal amount, may continue to hold such real
estate, rights, or interests for such longer period of time as would be permitted a
State chartered bank by the law of the State in which the [bank] is located. . . .
12 U.S.C. § 29.
As observed in the early case of Union National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U.S. 621 (1875), the
purposes of the statute are to ensure the maintenance of liquidity, prevent speculation in real
estate, and frustrate the accumulation of large masses of property by national banks. Based
on the representations in your letter, the 1981 OCC letter, and your remarks made during our
telephone conversations, the Bank is not in violation of Section 29.
Ownership of [ ] Property

Bank Premises
Under Section 29, a national bank may acquire and hold real estate to secure or satisfy debts
owed to it or to accommodate the transaction of its business. The 1981 OCC Letter from
Regional Administrator Adams to the Bank found no objection to the Bank continuing to hold
the [ ] property as part of bank premises. Mr
olation of Section 29.
Ownership of [ ] Property

Bank Premises
Under Section 29, a national bank may acquire and hold real estate to secure or satisfy debts
owed to it or to accommodate the transaction of its business. The 1981 OCC Letter from
Regional Administrator Adams to the Bank found no objection to the Bank continuing to hold
the [ ] property as part of bank premises. Mr. Adams considered the extensive use of the
property by Bank employees, customers, and others, and noted the Bank’s representation that
the usefulness of the [ ] tract lies in the property’s value as an employee benefit and a
good public relations builder. Further, Mr. Adams agreed with the Bank’s contention that the
property has significant promotional value for the bank in the age of increasing competition
for retail banking customers.
Based on our phone conversations and your letter, I am not aware of any new or additional
facts regarding the property that would warrant a different conclusion from that reached by
Mr. Adams in 1981. I will simply note that the OCC’s regulations explicitly provide that,
pursuant to Section 29(First), real estate necessary to the accommodation of the bank’s
business includes real estate other than that upon which the bank buildings are located.
12 C.F.R. § 7.3005. The OCC’s interpretive rulings at 12 C.F.R. Part 7 have recently been
revised. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4849 (1996). Revised Part 7 was published in the Federal Register
on February 9, 1996, and becomes effective April 1, 1996. Twelve C.F.R. § 7.3005 has been
revised and renumbered as 12 C.F.R. § 7.1000. Consistent with Section 7.3005, revised
hich the bank buildings are located.
12 C.F.R. § 7.3005. The OCC’s interpretive rulings at 12 C.F.R. Part 7 have recently been
revised. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4849 (1996). Revised Part 7 was published in the Federal Register
on February 9, 1996, and becomes effective April 1, 1996. Twelve C.F.R. § 7.3005 has been
revised and renumbered as 12 C.F.R. § 7.1000. Consistent with Section 7.3005, revised

- 4 -
Section 7.1000 provides that, for purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 29(First), real estate that is
necessary for the transaction of banking business includes property for the use of bank
officers, employees, or customers. See 12 C.F.R. § 7.1000(a)(2)(v).
Twelve U.S.C. § 29(First) does not restrict a national bank to owning or leasing a building
sufficient only for its on own current use. The key point is that a bank must hold the property
for banking premises and not for real estate speculation. See letter by Deputy Chief Counsel
John M. Miller (January 29, 1981) (unpublished). Consistent with the statute and interpretive
ruling, the OCC opined as early back as 1973 that a national bank may acquire property to be
used for the benefit and convenience of bank employees. See letter by Deputy Comptroller
Gwin (August 27, 1973) (unpublished) (stating that a national bank may acquire property,
either by purchase or lease, to be used as a day care center for the children of the employees).
I am not aware of evidence to suggest that the Bank, in this case, is holding the [ ] tract
for speculative purposes. To the contrary, the facts strongly suggest that the Bank, similar to
the bank referred to in the 1973 day care letter, has long used the property to accommodate its
employees, customers, and various consumer groups. Therefore, the Bank may continue to
hold the [ ] property pursuant to the 1981 OCC Letter
the Bank, in this case, is holding the [ ] tract
for speculative purposes. To the contrary, the facts strongly suggest that the Bank, similar to
the bank referred to in the 1973 day care letter, has long used the property to accommodate its
employees, customers, and various consumer groups. Therefore, the Bank may continue to
hold the [ ] property pursuant to the 1981 OCC Letter.
Alaska State Law
Section 29 also permits a national bank to hold real estate for longer than the five-year
holding limitation of the section for property acquired to secure or satisfy debt owed to it if
the bank held the property on October 15, 1982, and the property was not valued on the books
of the bank for more than a nominal amount since December 31, 1979. The national bank
may continue to hold such real estate for such longer period of time as would be permitted a
state chartered bank by the law of the state in which the bank is located if the aggregate
amount of earnings from such real estate is separately disclosed in the annual financial
statements of the association.
Section 245 of the Alaska Banking Code provides that:

All real and personal property not necessary for the convenient transaction or
promotion of a banking business under AS 06.05.230 that comes into the
possession of a state bank shall be disposed of as soon as possible. If the real
or personal property is not sold within the time limit prescribed by the
department in regulations, it shall be written off and may not be carried as an
asset of the bank.
Alaska Stat. 06.05.245 (1995).
The statute permits a state bank to hold real estate indefinitely so long as it is not valued and
carried on the bank’s books as an asset. This interpretation is consistent with the State’s
e real
or personal property is not sold within the time limit prescribed by the
department in regulations, it shall be written off and may not be carried as an
asset of the bank.
Alaska Stat. 06.05.245 (1995).
The statute permits a state bank to hold real estate indefinitely so long as it is not valued and
carried on the bank’s books as an asset. This interpretation is consistent with the State’s

- 5 -
Section 135(a) of the Alaska Administrative Code provides that:
1
The time limit for disposing of real estate not necessary for the convenient transaction
or promotion of a banking business, including property acquired to satisfy loans, is
two years from the date the bank receives title to the property. Real property not
disposed of within two years shall be written down annually at the rate of 20 percent of
the book value at the time of acquisition until the book value is reduced to $10. The
book value of the property must remain at $10 until disposed of by the bank. Alaska
Admin. Code tit. 3, § 2.135.
Division of Banking, Securities, and Corporations implementing regulations. This provision
1
of Section 29 may also permit the Bank to retain ownership of and hold onto the [ ]
property for the period permitted an Alaska state bank, which appears to be indefinitely, so
long as the other requirements of the provision are met.
The Bank clearly held the property before October 15, 1982. In addition, it is my
understanding that the property had been charged-off as an asset on the Bank’s books prior to
becoming a national bank in 1950. It is not clear whether the property was reinstated on the
books of the Bank at a certain value when the Bank reclassified the property as bank premises
in 1976
s of the provision are met.
The Bank clearly held the property before October 15, 1982. In addition, it is my
understanding that the property had been charged-off as an asset on the Bank’s books prior to
becoming a national bank in 1950. It is not clear whether the property was reinstated on the
books of the Bank at a certain value when the Bank reclassified the property as bank premises
in 1976. During our phone conversation on February 13, you had stated that the property was
valued by the Bank at a “nominal amount.” This being the case, so long as the Bank makes
the proper disclosures, if applicable, in the Bank’s financial statements, the Bank may also
lawfully retain ownership and possession of the [ ] tract pursuant to the provision in
Section 29 that refers to state law.
Accordingly, based on the two independent legal reasons discussed above, it is my opinion
that the Bank may continue to own and possess the 160 acre [ ] tract property in
question. Below, I will discuss whether the Bank may lease a portion of the property to [ Co.
] for purposes of removing a hill.

Permissible Use of Property
This issue of whether the Bank may lawfully retain ownership and possession of the [ ]
tract is separate and distinct from whether the Bank may lease out a portion of the real estate
to [Co.] to remove a hill and mine granite deposits. Consistent with Section 29, both the
courts and this Office have recognized that it is appropriate for a bank to maximize the utility
of its banking premises. Thus, in Brown v. Schleier, 118 F. 981, 983-84 (8th Cir. 1902),
aff’d, 194 U.S. 18 (1904), it was recognized that:
[T]he land which [a national bank] purchases or leases for the accommodation
of its business is very valuable, [therefore,] it should be accorded the same
rights that belong to other landowners of improving it in a way that will yield
the largest income, lessen its own rent, and render that part of its funds which
8 F. 981, 983-84 (8th Cir. 1902),
aff’d, 194 U.S. 18 (1904), it was recognized that:
[T]he land which [a national bank] purchases or leases for the accommodation
of its business is very valuable, [therefore,] it should be accorded the same
rights that belong to other landowners of improving it in a way that will yield
the largest income, lessen its own rent, and render that part of its funds which

- 6 -
are invested in realty most productive. There is nothing in the National Bank
Act, when rightly construed, which precludes national banks so long as they act
in good faith, from pursuing the policy outlined above.
Accordingly, a national bank is not restricted to constructing premises that are sufficient only
for its own current use. Once a bank has purchased land for the construction of its premises,
it may build with an eye toward leasing out the unused portion and thereby lower its operating
cost. It is consistent with Section 29, therefore, to lease out portions of a real estate parcel
owned by the bank and used in part for bank premises in order to obtain maximum return
from the property. The law allows this use when the property remains undivided and assumes
that ownership of the entire parcel is for the accommodation of the Bank’s business. See
memorandum by Andrew Campbell, Attorney, Legal Advisory Services Division (“LASD”)
(May 4, 1984) (unpublished).
It is also well established that national banks may lease their excess office space to others
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 29. See Wirtz v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 365 F.2d 641,
644 (10th Cir. 1966). This Office also has concluded that a bank may lease excess space in
its lobby and receive rent in the form of a percentage of the volume of sales or gross income
from the rented lobby space. Interpretive Letter No. 274 from Brian Smith, Chief Counsel
(Dec. 2, 1983), reprinted in Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 85,438 (“Smith Letter”); see also
Interpretive Letter No
F.2d 641,
644 (10th Cir. 1966). This Office also has concluded that a bank may lease excess space in
its lobby and receive rent in the form of a percentage of the volume of sales or gross income
from the rented lobby space. Interpretive Letter No. 274 from Brian Smith, Chief Counsel
(Dec. 2, 1983), reprinted in Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 85,438 (“Smith Letter”); see also
Interpretive Letter No. 342 from Peter Liebesman, Assistant Director, LASD (May 22, 1985),
reprinted in, Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 85,512 (“Liebesman Letter”).
The Smith Letter observed that incidental to a national bank’s authority to lease its office
space is its authority to establish appropriate lease terms based on whatever terms are
customary in the leasing of commercial office space. Such terms must be consistent with safe
and sound banking practices. Accordingly, the Smith Letter reasoned that a lease to an
insurance agency based in part on the volume of sales or gross income is a valid lease for a
national bank lessor to make because such leases are currently widespread. Further,
participating in such a leasing arrangement did not mean that a bank was engaging in the
insurance business or acting as an insurance agent in violation of 12 U.S.C. §§ 92 and
24(Seventh).
Also, the Liebesman Letter, citing the Smith Letter, approved a national bank’s leasing of
branch space to a travel agency. Warning that the bank could not enter into a partnership or
joint venture with the travel agency, the letter cautioned that an inference of partnership arises
when the percentage required in a percentage leasing arrangement is too high. Accordingly,
this Office advised the bank to include a clause in the leasing contract expressly negating a
partnership or joint venture, and expressly precluding any bank liability for the lessee’s debts
and liabilities. See also letter by William B
l agency, the letter cautioned that an inference of partnership arises
when the percentage required in a percentage leasing arrangement is too high. Accordingly,
this Office advised the bank to include a clause in the leasing contract expressly negating a
partnership or joint venture, and expressly precluding any bank liability for the lessee’s debts
and liabilities. See also letter by William B. Glidden, Assistant Director, LASD (February 10,
1986) (unpublished) (finding that a bank’s proposed use of OREO property to store, maintain,
and recondition property repossessed by the bank is considered “use in the business of the
bank”; letter by John R. Powers, District Administrator, Midwestern District, (December 23,

- 7 -
1986) (unpublished) (concluding that it is not a violation of 12 U.S.C. §§ 29 and 24(Seventh)
for a national bank to lease space above its parking garage to a third party for the purposes of
erecting an office building).
Based on this authority, it is my opinion that the Bank may properly lease a portion of the [
] property to [ Co. ] for removal of a hill. As with the situations described above, the Bank
lawfully owns and possesses the [ ] property. Therefore, it may lease out the unused
portion to lower its costs and maximize the utility of the land as could other landowners.
Furthermore, the lease arrangement with [ Co. ] whereby the Bank receives royalty payments
from removal of the hill and granite deposits is also permissible. However, the Bank should
be careful so as to not enter into a partnership or joint venture with [ Co. ]. Therefore, the
leasing agreement should be reviewed by the Bank to make sure that the royalty payments are
normal and customary for such agreements consistent with the standards in the Smith and
Liebesman Letters.
I trust this letter clarifies this Office’s position with respect to the Bank’s ownership and use
of the [ ] real estate
enter into a partnership or joint venture with [ Co. ]. Therefore, the
leasing agreement should be reviewed by the Bank to make sure that the royalty payments are
normal and customary for such agreements consistent with the standards in the Smith and
Liebesman Letters.
I trust this letter clarifies this Office’s position with respect to the Bank’s ownership and use
of the [ ] real estate. Of course, my opinions in this letter are based on the facts as I
understand them to be and reiterated in this letter. Should any of the facts or representations
underlying this opinion differ, the conclusions could change. If you have any questions
regarding this issue, please contact me at (415) 545-5980.

Sincerely,
\s\
Jimmy Singh
Attorney

## Nearby sections

- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0758. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.