Opinion
March 22, 1966.
April 19, 1966.
Building and loan associations — Branch office — Building and Loan Board — Powers — Discretion — Appellate review — Building and Loan Code — Party aggrieved.
1. In this case in which it appeared that the Building and Loan Board approved the application of a savings and loan association to establish a branch office and the appellant contended that the evidence was inadequate to support the findings and conclusions made by the Building and Loan Board and that the Board abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously, it was Held, upon a review of the record, that there was no merit to such contentions.
Appeals — Review — Scope of review — Broad certiorari — Building and Loan Board.
2. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction to review on a broad certiorari an order of the Pennsylvania Building and Loan Board approving or disapproving an application of an association to establish a branch office. [412]
3. The Supreme Court will not reverse the decision of the Building and Loan Board if there is adequate evidence to support its findings of fact and conclusions drawn therefrom, and the proceeding is free from error of law and there has been no clear abuse of discretion, or an excess of power. [412]
4. A federal savings and loan association has the right to appeal from an order of the Building and Loan Board approving the application of a competitor state savings and loan association to establish a branch office. [412]
Mr. Justice COHEN concurred in the result.
Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 108, March T., 1966, from order of Building and Loan Board, in case of Franklin Federal Savings Loan Association of Pittsburgh v. G. Allen Patterson, chairman of Building and Loan Board of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Homewood Savings Loan Association. Order affirmed.
Application by building and loan association to establish branch office.
Adjudication entered by Building and Loan Board of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirming approval of application by Department of Banking. Objector filed petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 68 1/2 which was granted by the Supreme Court.
Harold H. Goldman, for appellant.
William M. Steinbach, Assistant Attorney General, with him Frederic G. Antoun, Deputy Attorney General, and Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for board, appellee.
William H. Markus, with him Carmen R. Capone, for association, appellee.
On December 8, 1964, Homewood Savings and Loan Association filed an application with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking for authority to establish a branch office at 5857 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On February 2, 1965, the Department approved the application. A protest was filed by Franklin Federal Savings and Loan Association, appellant herein, whose principal office is located at 5818 Forbes Avenue, almost directly across the street from Homewood's proposed branch office.
Hereinafter referred to as Homewood.
Hereinafter referred to as Franklin.
A hearing was held before the Building and Loan Board on April 29, 1965, On October 20, 1965, the Board filed an adjudication with findings of fact, discussions and reasons for adjudication, and conclusions of law and order. The Board's Order affirmed the action of the Department of Banking which, we repeat, approved the application of Homewood and directed the Department of Banking to issue a Letter of Authority to Homewood.
On November 17, 1965, Franklin filed a Petition with this Court for a Writ of Certiorari under Rule 68 1/2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. After answers were filed by all parties in interest, we granted the Petition on December 10, 1965.
Franklin contends (1) that the adjudication of the Building and Loan Board was not adequately supported by the evidence; (2) that the Board clearly abused its discretion; and (3) that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious.
The Building and Loan Code, Act of May 5, 1933, P. L. 457, § 204.1, as amended, 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1074-204.1, provides that the Department shall approve such an application ". . . if it finds upon investigation that there is a need for services or facilities such as are contemplated by the establishment of such branch and that all requirements of this section have been complied with . . . ."
In Cumberland Valley Savings and Loan Association v. Myers, 396 Pa. 331, 153 A.2d 466, we said (page 333): "Both the 'Building and Loan Code' and the 'Banking Code' must be construed, as the Legislature undoubtedly intended, in pari materia with the 'Department of Banking Code', . . . ."
The Department of Banking Code, Act of May 15, 1933, P. L. 565, § 202, as amended, 71 P. S. § 733-202, vests discretion in the Department ". . . to insure the safe and sound conduct of the business of any institution subject to its supervision, conserve its assets, maintain public confidence in the business of such institutions and protect the public interest and the interest of depositors, other creditors and shareholders thereof."
"The Legislature . . . did not exclude or intend to exclude competition between banks; it intended, inter alia, to exclude such competition as would likely weaken or destroy some banks in an overbanked community and thus weaken or injure the entire banking system, to the detriment of depositors, creditors, stockholders and the public alike." Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa. 311, 325, 106 A.2d 416.
The decision of the Board ". . . will be sustained unless it is based upon facts or conclusions which are not adequately supported by the evidence, or it committed a clear abuse of discretion, or exceeded its power or based its decision, conclusion or Order on an erroneous interpretation of the law: Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa. 311, 106 A.2d 416; Cumberland Valley Savings and Loan Association v. Myers, 396 Pa. 331, 153 A.2d 466; Dauphin Deposit Trust Company v. Myers, 388 Pa. 444, 130 A.2d 686; Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Banking Board of Pennsylvania, 383 Pa. 253, 118 A.2d 561." Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Myers, 406 Pa. 438, 441, 179 A.2d 209, 211. See also First Bellefonte Bank and Trust Company v. Myers, 410 Pa. 298, 188 A.2d 726; First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Bellevue v. Myers, 410 Pa. 294, 188 A.2d 716.
Upon review of an appeal from the Board's decision ". . . our power to review is on broad certiorari and upon such a review the Court considers the entire record, including all of the testimony." First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Bellevue v. Myers, 410 Pa., supra, at page 297. Accord: First Bellefonte Bank and Trust Co. v. Myers, 410 Pa., supra; Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Myers, 406 Pa., supra.
Franklin is undoubtedly a competitor of Homewood and as such has a standing and a right to appeal, even though it is a Federal Savings and Loan Association and Homewood is a State Savings and Loan Association. Delaware County National Bank v. Campbell, 378 Pa., supra; cf. also The Building and Loan Code, § 204.1, supra.
After a careful review of the record, we find that the facts upon which the Order is based are clearly supported by the evidence and the Board did not exceed its power or commit a clear abuse of discretion or error of law.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice COHEN concurs in the result.