Elizabeth Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Howell
| Decision Date | 10 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. A--109,A--109 |
| Citation | 24 N.J. 488,132 A.2d 779 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Charles R. HOWELL, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey, Colonial Savings and Loan Association, etc., et al., Respondents. CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellants, v. Charles R. HOWELL, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey, Colonial Savings and Loan Association, etc., et al., Respondents. UNION COUNTY TRUST COMPANY, a banking corporation of the State of New Jersey, Appellant, v. Charles R. HOWELL, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey, Colonial Savings and Loan Association, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Frank K. Sauer, Elizabeth, for appellants. Elizabeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Emerald Savings & Loan Ass'n, Union County Savings Bank, and Central Home Trust Co. (Sauer & Wojcik, Elizabeth, attorneys).
Fred G. Stickel, Jr., Newark, for appellant City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (Stickel & Stickel, Newark, attorneys; Fred Stickel, III, Newark, on the brief).
Alan V. Lowenstein, Newark, for appellant Union County Trust Co. (Lowenstein, Del Tufo, Callahan & Kean, Newark, attorneys; Aaron Kaufman, Elizabeth, of counsel; Richard M. Sandler, Newark, on the brief).
David D. Furman, Deputy Atty. Gen. for respondent Commissioner of Banking & Insurance (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, attorney).
Richard V. Stein for respondent Colonial Savings & Loan Ass'n, Elizabeth (Stein, Stein & Hughes, Elizabeth, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The case before us involves the application of subsection B of section 21 of the 'Savings and Loan Act,' L.1946, c. 56 (N.J.S.A. 17:12A--1 et seq.), L.1952, c. 204. Under the authority of that subsection the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance granted permission to the Colonial Savings and Loan Association of Roselle Park to establish a branch office in the City of Elizabeth through the purchase of the Excelsior Building and Loan Association in Elizabeth and move it to a substitute location. The appellants--a savings bank two trust companies with savings departments, two saving and loan associations chartered under federal law, and one similar association organized under the state banking laws--objected to any such approval and by these proceedings seek to review the Commissioner's determination.
The Facts.
The Colonial Savings and Loan Association has its principal office in Roselle Park, N.J. where it has done business since 1904. At the end of 1955 it had 3139 savings members and 1029 borrowing members. About three miles away in the City of Elizabeth, the Excelsior Building and Loan Association maintained its office at No. 715 Elizabeth Avenue. It has been in business since 1887 and as its present location, an upper floor in an office building, for upwards of 25 years. It has about 358 savings members and 54 borrowers. These associations entered into an agreement, providing in essence for the purchase by Colonial of all of the assets of Excelsior and for a transfer of the principal office of Excelsior, presumably under N.J.S.A. 17:12A--24, to a new location to be selected by Colonial, or for an application by Colonial to the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance for permission to change the location of the office of Excelsior to a 'suitable substitute' to be selected by Colonial and to maintain that new office as a branch office of Colonial, under N.J.S.A. 17:12A--21, subd. B. The agreement was made contingent upon the approval by the Commissioner of the changed location. Colonial chose the second alternative and applied to the Commissioner for permission to establish a branch office at 29 Broad Street, Elizabeth, as a 'suitable substitute' for the office of Excelsior at No. 715 Elizabeth Avenue. The proposed location is about 8/10ths of a mile away from Excelsior's principal office and in the midst of the establishments maintained by Elizabeth Federal Savings and Loan Association, Emerald Savings and Loan Association, Union County Savings Bank, Central Home Trust Company, City Federal Savings and Loan Association and Union County Trust Company, the appellants herein.
No notice of Colonial's application was given to any of the appellants. When they learned of it, however, they wrote to the Commissioner indicating their objections to the proposed action and asked to be heard. The Commissioner took the position that nothing in subsection B of section 21 of the Act, N.J.S.A. 17:12A--21, required that notice of an application for approval of a branch office in connection with a merger or bulk purchase of assets be given to any other institutions, and that there was no statutory basis for a formal hearing. Nevertheless, without recognizing them as 'parties,' he afforded the objectants an opportunity to present whatever evidence and argument they had in opposition to the application of Colonial. These proceedings, however, could by no means be characterized as a full hearing in the true sense of the word. While the objectants were given every opportunity to present their own evidence, they were in substantial respects denied the opportunity to meet the evidence on the other side of the case and that relied upon by the Commissioner. Some of the evidence was furnished Ex parte by Colonial to the Commissioner and not made available to the objectants. The Commissioner in reaching his conclusion also considered data available in the files of the Department of Banking and Insurance and furnished by a departmental investigation of Colonial's application and by a survey of the territory in question, but not made part of the hearing record.
In granting the application by Colonial the Commissioner found:
'* * * that the maintenance by 'Colonial' of a branch at 29 Broad Street Elizabeth, will be in the public interest; that it will be of benefit to the area to be served, and that it will be beneficial to the members of both 'Colonial' and 'Excelsior', and permission is hereby given to the establishment and maintenance of said branch by the 'Colonial'.'
The objecting institutions, asserting a right to a review of the Commissioner's determination on the ground that they were aggrieved parties, since the determination made it possible for Colonial to compete directly with them for savings and thrift deposits in their area, appealed under R.R. 4:88--8 to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in three separate groups. Colonial then moved to dismiss all the proceedings on the ground that the appellants had no standing to appeal. Decision on that question was reversed until final judgment and the appeals were consolidated. We then certified the matters on our own motion pursuant to R.R. 1:10--1(a), and the argument of all the parties and of all issues has been conducted before this court.
The case presents these questions: (1) whether the appellants have any standing to seek judicial review of the action of the Commissioner; (2) whether the objecting institutions were entitled to notice and a full hearing on Colonial's application for the Commissioner's approval, and if so, whether the hearing afforded was sufficient in the circumstances; and (3) whether the Commissioner properly discharged the power delegated to him.
The Statutes.
Savings and loan associations and building and loan associations organized under the laws of this State are now controlled by the 'Savings and Loan Act,' supra, N.J.S.A. 17:12A--1 et seq. Subsection A of section 21 of that act, N.J.S.A. 17:12A--21, provides that if the capital, reserve and undivided profit requirements therein set forth are met, an association may establish a branch office in the municipality in which it has its main or principal office, or it may establish a branch office in any other municipality in the county of its principal office, but that no such branch office may be established in another municipality if any other state or federal association has its principal office or a branch office in operation there. Application to and approval by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance is made a requirement of such action by subsection A(4) of section 21:
'Before any branch office shall be established, the association shall file written application with the commissioner for his approval.
Before approving such application, the commissioner shall determine that the maintenance of such branch office is in the public interest and will be of benefit to the area served by such branch office, and that it may be established without undue injury to any other association or Federal association in the area in which it is proposed to locate such branch office and that conditions in the area to be served, afford reasonable promise of successful operation.
'Not less than thirty days after mailing of the aforementioned notice and within ninety days thereafter, the commissioner shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SMB Associates v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
...with the public interest," is sufficient to give standing to seek judicial review of official action. Elizabeth Federal S & L Ass'n v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 499, 132 A.2d 779 (1957) (quoting Hudson Bergen, etc. Ass'n v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Hoboken, 135 N.J.L. 502, 510, 52 A.2d 668 (E. ......
-
Closing of Jamesburg High School, School Dist. of Borough of Jamesburg, Middlesex County, Matter of
...is a creature of legislation who must act only within the bounds of the authority delegated to him." Elizabeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 499, 132 A.2d 779, 785 (1957). Where there exists reasonable doubt as to whether such power is vested in the administrative body, the......
-
Senior Appeals Examiners, In re
...process and to curb administrative abuses. See In re Masiello, 25 N.J. 590, 603, 138 A.2d 393 (1958); Elizabeth Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 499, 132 A.2d 779 (1957). 58 N.J. at 248--249, 277 A.2d at 198. Under his third and final point the Attorney General urges that the L......
-
Avant v. Clifford
...process and to curb administrative abuses. See In re Masiello, 25 N.J. 590, 603, 138 A.2d 393 (1958); Elizabeth Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 499, 132 A.2d 779 (1957). Thus, in applying the requirements of procedural 'due process' to our scrutiny of the standards under revie......