422 F.2d 504 (8th Cir. 1970), 19614, Central Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Chariton, Iowa v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd.
|Citation:||422 F.2d 504|
|Party Name:||CENTRAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHARITON, IOWA, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD et al., Appellees. CENTRAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHARITON, IOWA, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF DES MOINES, IOWA, Appellee. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Carroll, Iowa, Appellant,|
|Case Date:||February 25, 1970|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
John D. Shors and A. Arthur Davis, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellants; Donald A. Wine, Des Moines, Iowa, Shirley A. Webster, Winterset, Iowa, R. H. Werner Creston, Iowa, Walter Ward Reynoldson, Osceola, Iowa, and G. A. Minnich, Jr., Carroll, Iowa, on the briefs.
Edward F. Sloane, of Sloane & Muldoon, Washington, D.C., for appellee United Federal Savings and Loan Assn. of Des Moines; Joseph A. Muldoon, Jr., Washington, D.C., on the brief.
Daniel J. Goldberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., Washington, D.C., for Federal Home Loan Bank Bd.; Arthur W. Leibold, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Max Wilfand, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Paul E. McGraw, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., on the brief.
Before MATTHES, BLACKMUN and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
When the Federal Home Loan Bank Board authorized United Federal Savings and Loan Association of Des Moines, Iowa (United Federal) to utilize a mobile savings and loan facility (essentially an office mounted on wheels) to provide its services to three Iowa communities, several competitors brought civil actions for injunctive and declaratory relief to negate the exercise of such authority. In two actions against the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (Board) and its members, plaintiffs, state-chartered commercial banks, a director of one of them, two state savings and loan associations, two federal savings and loan associations, and a director of a third, sought to invalidate the regulations and the order under which the Board had authorized United Federal to Furnish such services. In a third action similar relief on similar grounds was sought against United Federal and as an additional basis for an injunction these plaintiffs alleged that United Federal, in seeking to operate the mobile facilities and in seeking to merge with another Iowa Federal savings and loan association, had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., 15 et seq.
The trial court consolidated these actions and, thereafter, in response to defendants' motions to dismiss, treated as applications for summary judgment (per Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), 56), entered judgments dismissing all of the actions. Plaintiffs appeal from these judgments.
Appellants do not dispute an initial determination of the trial court that only federal savings and loan associations and their officers possess standing to sue the Board. See 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(1). The standing of these plaintiffs, as well as the appeal on the separate anti-trust allegations, suffice to enable us to review all issues raised. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 26; 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The trial court in an opinion reported as Central Savings and Loan Association of Chariton, Iowa v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 293 F.Supp. 617 (S.D.Iowa 1968), determined that United Federal possessed lawful and proper authority to provide savings and loan services through a mobile facility. The court also determined that the appellants' complaint for violation of the anti-trust laws failed to state a proper claim for relief.
We agree with Judge Stephenson's opinion and affirm for the reasons he
has advanced, together with our amplification of them.
Appellants essentially claim:
(1) that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the regulations relating to the use of mobile facilities;
(2) that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting United Federal authority to provide such savings and loan services to three Iowa communities; and
(3) that United Federal's proposed operation of mobile facilities together with its proposed merger with a similar association violate the federal anti-trust laws.
The underlying statute here pertinent reads:
'In order to provide local mutual thrift institutions in which people may invest their funds and in order to provide for the financing of homes, the Board is authorized, under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, to provide for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation of associations to be known as 'Federal Savings and Loan Associations', and to issue charters therefor, giving primary consideration to the best practices of local mutual thrift and home-financing institutions in the United States.' 12 U.S.C.A. § 1464(a).
Appellants focus their attack on the language of the statute which requires that in promulgating regulations, the Board give 'primary consideration to the best practices of local mutual thrift and home-financing institutions in the United States'.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP