Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 48411
| Decision Date | 12 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48411,48411 |
| Citation | 346 So.2d 53 |
| Parties | Gerald A. LEWIS, as Comptroller and as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, State of Florida, Appellant, v. BANK OF PASCO COUNTY, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Motions For Clarification and To Appear As Amicus Curiae and For Rehearing March 17, 1977.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; Hugh M. Taylor, Judge.
Ed Kuhnel, Gen. Counsel, William B. Corbett, Jr., Asst. Gen. Counsel and Fred O. Drake, III, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Joseph C. Jacobs and Robert J. Angerer, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for appellees.
Affirmed.
ON MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE AND FOR REHEARING
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Clarification and To Appear As Amicus Curiae filed by The First Bank of Port Richey (proposed), The Public Bank of St. Cloud (proposed), and The Gibsonton State Bank (proposed) and the Petition for Rehearing filed by Gerald A. Lewis, as Comptroller and as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, State of Florida. Both motions are directed to this Court's opinion dated November 12, 1976, which affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County, dated November 17, 1975. The Motion for Clarification and To Appear As Amicus Curiae is granted; the Petition for Rehearing is denied.
To clarify our opinion of November 12, 1976, we are setting forth the scholarly and well-reasoned opinion of the Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit. That opinion reads as follows:
Plaintiffs and the defendant have moved for sumary judgment. They agree that a decision of this case turns upon questions of law.
Plaintiffs are banks authorized to do business under the laws of Florida and directors and stockholders of such banks. As such they are proper parties to seek a declaration of the law posed by this question:
May the Comptroller of the State of Florida demand, and secure, from banking corporations lists of all their stockholders and release such lists to the news media or otherwise open them for inspection by the public?
The plaintiffs do not question the authority of the Comptroller 1 to examine the stock books of banks, along with all other records reasonably material to the performance of his duties in supervising banks. Nor do they question their duty to prepare and furnish to the Comptroller accurate lists of all their stockholders and the number of shares owned by each.
The sole question at issue is the authority of the Comptroller under existing law to release the information contained in such lists to the public and the news media.
Before examining the applicable law it may be well to observe that, insofar as the statutes are applicable, the information contained in the stock book of a bank is in exactly the same status as the information contained in its records of deposits, of outstanding loans, and the financial statements of all borrowers or applicants for loans from the bank. It is, of course, necessary for the Comptroller to have access to these records in order to intelligently determine the solvency of the bank.
While the Comptroller must, in the overriding public interest, have access to all of a bank's records which may be in any substantial degree, material to its solvency, this does not mean that the public or the news media should be permitted to examine the records.
The statute which makes public records open to the public, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, expressly provides in Subsection 119.07(2):
"All public records which presently are deemed by law to be confidential or which are prohibited from being inspected by the public, whether provided by general or special acts of the legislature or which may hereafter be so provided, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section."
It will be observed that records referred to in Section 658.10(1), Florida Statutes, are expressly exempted from the right of public scrutiny.
Section 658.10(1), Florida Statutes, says in part as follows:
The defendant relies upon the underscored clause as giving him authority, having demanded and received from banks information as to the names and stock holdings of all their stockholders, to deliver such lists to all news media and to the public generally.
It cannot be denied that, although inconsistent with other provisions of this statute, as well as Subsection 119.07(2), the literal meaning of the words used by the legislature gives the Comptroller this right. The Court does not have authority to change the statute.
But the Court does have the authority, and the duty, in appropriate cases, to declare legislative acts to be in conflict with the Constitution and, to the extent of such conflict, to be invalid.
Clearly the statute itself does not give the public or the news media the right to inspect, copy and publish the information received by the Comptroller in the course of performing his duties under the banking laws. Such information is under the statute confidential except when released "with the consent of the department." There are no restrictions, limitations, or guidelines provided in the statute to limit or regulate the action of the department in granting a (sic) withholding consent to the news media inspecting, copying and publishing any information in a bank's records.
As the statute is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avalon Carriage Service v. City of St. Augustine, 3:04 CV 1126 J 16MCR.
...regulations by whim, by showing favoritism, or by exercising unbridled discretion." (Dkt. 147 at 17)(citing Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53, 55-56 (Fla.1976)). Upon review of the record, the Court agrees with the Defendants. The LGAA was passed by Congress in response to "`an in......
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, In re
...powers with sufficient clarity to preclude the agency from acting through whim, favoritism, or unbridled discretion. Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53 (Fla.1977); Flesch v. Metropolitan Dade County, 240 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 244 So.2d 432 (Fla.1971). The legi......
-
Solimena v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913, 924 (Fla.1978); see D'Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 164 (Fla.1977); Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53 (Fla.1977); Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209 (Fla.1968); State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969 (190......
-
Askew v. Cross Key Waterways
...(b) to be deficient when assessed in light of prior case law. See D'Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 164 (Fla.1977); Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53 (Fla.1977); Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974); Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209 (Fla.1968); State v. Atla......
-
Walking the Tightrope: Finding Balance Between Strict Nondelegation and the Administrative State through an Examination of State Experiences
...that allowed administrators to designate areas of special concern with little legislative guidance). 64. Lewis v. Bank of Pasco Cnty., 346 So. 2d 53, 55–56 (Fla. 1976). 65. Robinson v. Stewart, 161 So. 3d 589, 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (upholding a delegation to the Board of Education,......