Arkansas Sav. and Loan Ass'n Bd. v. Central Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 74--56

• Decision Date: 01 July 1974
• Docket Number: No. 74--56,74--56
• Citation: 256 Ark. 846,510 S.W.2d 872
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Parties: ARKANSAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION BOARD et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL ARKANSAS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

Page 872

510 S.W.2d 872

256 Ark. 846

ARKANSAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION BOARD et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL ARKANSAS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 74--56.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 1, 1974.

Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge & Clark by William L. Patton, Jr. and Hermann Ivester, Little Rock, for appellants.

Lester & Shults by Edward Lester, Little Rock, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

In 1973 the appellee, Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Association, applied to the Arkansas Savings and Loan Association Board for a charter to begin business as a savings and loan association in the city of Conway. The application was resisted by the Security Savings & Loan Association of Conway, which had been chartered in 1961.

A three-member quorum of the five-member Board considered the application after an extended hearing. By a 2--0 vote the Board denied the application, finding, in the language of the statute, that there is not a public need for the proposed association and that the volume of business in the area is not sufficient to indicate a successful operation. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 67--1824 (Repl.1966). On appeal the circuit court set aside the Board's decision, finding it to be without substantial supporting evidence.

At the outset the appellee contends that the Board erred in failing to make specific findings of underlying facts, as required by this provision of the Administrative Procedure Act: 'A final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings.' Ark.Stat.Ann. § 5--710 (Supp.1973). The appellee argues that the Board's failure to make the required statement of underlying facts justified the circuit court in reviewing the evidence and determining that there was no basis for the Board's conclusion. The appellants (the Board itself and the protesting association) describe the Board's error as 'minor and inconsequential' and insist that the appellee cannot raise the point in this court, because it was not raised in the circuit court.

We cannot agree entirely with either position. To begin with, the requirement that the underlying facts be concisely and explicitly stated is primarily for the benefit of the reviewing courts and therefore cannot be waived by a litigant. Moreover, the Board's failure to comply with the statute is not a minor and inconsequential matter.

Professor Davis summarizes the law accurately in § 16.05 of his Administrative Law Treatise (1958):

The practical reasons for requiring administrative findings are so powerful that the requirement has been imposed with remarkable uniformity by virtually all federal and state courts, irrespective of a statutory requirement. The reasons have to do with facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative...