Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of Banking, 7822
| Decision Date | 04 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. K,No. 7822,7822 |
| Parties | MAINE BANKERS ASSOCIATION v. BUREAU OF BANKING. DecisionLawen 95-195. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Mark L. Walker, Maine Bankers Association, Augusta, for Plaintiffs.
Craig H. Nelson (orally), Andrew B. MacLean, American Bankers Association, Augusta, Amicus Curiae.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Linda Conti (orally), Assistant Attorney General, Augusta, Roderick R. Rovzar, Paul F. Driscoll (orally), Daniel L. Cummings, Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, Portland, for Defendants.
Gretchen L. Jones, Maine Credit Union League, Portland, Amici Curiae.
William J. Sheils, Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley & Keddy, Portland, for Credit Union National Assn.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Maine Bankers Association appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J.) affirming a decision of the Superintendent of the Bureau of Banking that authorized Saco Valley Federal Credit Union to change its charter and to expand its membership. The Association argues that the Superintendent misconstrued the credit union field of membership statute and made findings based on insufficient evidence. We affirm the judgment.
In February 1994 Saco Valley applied to the Superintendent, pursuant to 9-B M.R.S.A. § 873 (1980), to convert from a federally chartered to a state-chartered credit union and to expand its field of membership from a limited industrial base to a community base. In August 1994 the Superintendent approved Saco Valley's application, granting to the credit union a field of membership comprised of people living or working in the six municipalities of Saco, Buxton, Dayton, Lyman, Hollis, and Waterboro. The Association sought direct judicial review in the Superior Court pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 (1989) and M.R.Civ.P. 80C. The court affirmed the Superintendent's decision and this appeal followed.
When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court in reviewing an administrative action, we review the agency decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence. Centamore v. Department of Human Servs., 664 A.2d 369, 370 (Me.1995). When the dispute involves an agency's interpretation of a statute administered by it, the agency's interpretation, although not binding on the Court, is accorded great deference and will be upheld unless the statute plainly compels a contrary result. Id.
Pursuant to 9-B M.R.S.A. § 812(2)(D) (Supp.1994), Saco Valley's application was required to contain a proposed field of membership that conformed to the criteria set forth in 9-B M.R.S.A. § 814 (1980) that provided:
1. Field of Membership. "Field of Membership" of a credit union means those persons having a common bond of occupation or association; residence within a well-defined neighborhood, community or rural district; employment by a common employer or by employers located within a well-defined industrial park or community; membership in a bona fide fraternal, religious, cooperative, labor, rural, educational or similar organization; and members of the immediate families of such persons.
Id., amended by P.L. 1995, ch. 101, § 1.
The criteria in section 814 are designed to insure a measure of commonality among the credit union members. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knutson v. Department of Secretary of State
...law, or abuse of discretion, see Palesky v. Secretary of State, 1998 ME 103, ¶ 9, 711 A.2d 129, 132 (citing Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of Banking, 684 A.2d 1304, 1305-06 (Me.1996)). Here, the Secretary's factual findings are not challenged, and the only issues presented relate to the app......
-
Pennsylvania Bankers v. Dept. of Banking
...Colonial Bank v. Colorado Financial Services Bd., 961 P.2d 579 (Colo.Ct.App.1998)(single regulatory system); Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of Banking, 684 A.2d 1304 (Me.1996); In re North Carolina Sav. and Loan League, 302 N.C. 458, 276 S.E.2d 404 (1981)(hearing 17. In Mo. Bankers Ass'n v. ......
-
Totman-Berube v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys.
...a party seeking review of an agency's findings must prove they are unsupported by any competent evidence." Maine Baker's Ass'n v. Bureau of Banking, 684 A.2d 1304, 1306 (Me. 1996). "It is not sufficient to demonstrate that, on the facts of the case, the decision maker could have made choice......
-
Western Maine Center for Children v. Department of Human Services, KEN AP-03-02
...on the Court, is accorded great deference and will be upheld unless the statute plainly compels a contrary result." Maine Bankers Ass'n, 684 A.2d at 1306 Centamore v. Department of Human Services, 664 A.2d 369, 370 (Me. 1995)). The first of petitioner's arguments in its petition for review ......