State Bank of Boyd v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 08 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. C8-85-2078,C8-85-2078
• Citation: 384 N.W.2d 550
• Parties: STATE BANK OF BOYD, et al., Appellants, v. Michael A. HATCH, Commissioner of Commerce for the State of Minnesota, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Court-Appointed Receiver for the State Bank of Boyd, Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 550

384 N.W.2d 550

STATE BANK OF BOYD, et al., Appellants, v. Michael A. HATCH, Commissioner of Commerce for the State of Minnesota, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Court-Appointed Receiver for the State Bank of Boyd, Respondents.

No. C8-85-2078.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 8, 1986.

Review Denied July 25, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Entertaining respondents' arguments prior to issuance of an alternative writ is harmless error.

2. Alternative writ of mandamus is properly denied where petitioners lack standing and failed to pursue exclusive remedy.

Wendy Alison Nora, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Gregory P. Huwe, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Michael A. Hatch.

Brian E. Palmer, Kim A. Anderson, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, for Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and FORSBERG and LESLIE, JJ.

OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from an order denying appellants' petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. Appellants claim the trial court (1) erred in entertaining respondents' arguments prior to issuance of the alternative writ, (2) abused its discretion in denying the petition, and (3) cannot use its discretion to refuse mandamus because appellants seek only to enforce rights clearly conferred by statute. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant State Bank of Boyd (Boyd) operated as a state-chartered banking corporation. Subsequent to examination conducted by state examiners and by respondent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a report of examination dated October 19, 1984 disclosed Boyd was in an unsafe and unsound condition to conduct business, its capital was impaired, it was insolvent, and it would soon be unable to meet the demands of its depositors. As a result, respondent Commissioner of Commerce Michael A. Hatch issued two orders on October 23, 1984. One effective October 24, 1984, stated the Commissioner was taking possession of Boyd's property and business pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 49.04 (1982). The other appointed respondent FDIC to act as receiver or liquidator of Boyd upon closing pursuant to the first order and Minn.Stat. § 48.57 (1982) (recodified at Minn.Stat. § 49.05, subd. (5)).

On October 24, 1984, several actions occurred. The trial court issued an order filed October 25, 1984 approving appointment of the FDIC as receiver or liquidator and vesting respondent FDIC with all necessary powers. State Bank of Madison (Madison) submitted a bid for purchase of Boyd's assets and assumption of its liabilities for a $226,000 premium. A contract of sale to Madison, an indemnity agreement between respondent FDIC and Madison, and a purchase and assumption agreement including a schedule of assets purchased by the assuming bank were signed by respondent FDIC. The trial court issued a second order filed October 25, 1984 approving sale of Boyd's assets and transfer of its liabilities to Madison. The record indicates notice of the Commissioner's order, application to the court, and trial court approval of the FDIC's appointment as receiver was personally served on then directors of Boyd.

Eleven months later, on September 20, 1985, appellants petitioned for an alternative writ of mandamus. Appellants here in addition to Boyd, are Boyd's holding company, former directors and shareholders, depositors, loan debtors, and unsecured creditors. That petition requested (1) recovery of appellant Boyd's property and business, (2) accounting for all property and business sold without approval of a court with competent jurisdiction, (3) placement of Madison's payment in escrow, (4) retaining appellants' business and property to permit appellants to move for injunction or other relief, (5) return of Boyd's charter, (6) conduct of all further proceedings pursuant to Minn.Stat. ch. 49, (7) set trial on damages following respondents' return to the writ, (8) punitive damages, and (9) attorney's fees. The trial court denied appellants' motion by order filed October 4, 1985.

Appellants also moved for Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02 relief from the October 25, 1984 trial court order approving sale to Madison, asserting the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an inventory pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 49.24, subd. 1 had not been filed. Appellants further claimed respondent FDIC committed fraud upon the court by claiming clear title to appellant Boyd's assets. By order filed October 28, 1985, the trial court denied appellants' motion.

This appeal (C8-85-2078), filed November 6, 1985, is from the October 4, 1985 trial court order denying appellants' petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. Appellants have filed three additional appeals. An appeal (C8-85-2310) filed December 16, 1985 is from the October 28, 1985 trial court order denying appellants' rule 60.02 motion. Another appeal (CX-86-66), filed January 8, 1986, is from the October 25, 1984 order approving appointment of respondent FDIC as receiver or liquidator. A fourth appeal (CO-86-89), filed January 8, 1986, is from the October 25, 1984 order approving the sale to Madison of appellant Boyd's assets and transfer of its liabilities.

By order dated February 20, 1986, this court consolidated appeals C8-85-2310, CX-86-66 and CO-86-89. These appeals remained to be briefed and processed and the instant appeal continued unconsolidated.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in entertaining respondents' arguments before determining appellants' petition?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellants' petition for an alternative writ of mandamus?

ANALYSIS

1. Appellants claim (a) a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus is in the nature of an ex parte proceeding, (b) an alternative writ petition must be determined solely on the basis of its compliance with mandamus standards, and (c) arguments opposing issuance of the writ of mandamus may not be heard until the issued alternative writ's return date. Appellants agree respondents are entitled to be heard, but claim respondents' defenses to mandamus are premature prior to issuance of the alternative writ.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated, however:

According to statutory procedure, an answer is proper after the alternative writ has issued. Minn.St. 586.06. While it is clear that [defendant] did not comply with the strict dictates of the statute, the question is whether such error is cause for reversal. We do not believe so.

If the trial court had struck [defendant's] answer and issued the alternative writ, [defendant] would have answered with the same allegations as in its original answer. On the merits, the issues would have been identical and would have created the same burdens of proof. Thus, the technical error did not affect the ruling upon the merits and is thus not reversible.

State ex rel. Pillsbury v. Honeywell, Inc., 291 Minn. 322, 332, 191 N.W.2d 406, 413 (1971). Thus, the error if any in receiving and considering respondent's answer prior to issuance of the alternative writ was harmless.

2. Appellants claim the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant their petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. They assert the petition seeks only to enforce rights clearly conferred by statute and was procedurally correct. Appellants challenge the trial court's conclusions regarding the party directed by mandamus, standing, the rights of third parties, and the exclusiveness of remedy.

(a) Standing.

Appellants claim they have standing to seek performance of respondents' statutory ministerial duties regarding liquidation. They allege harm flowing from improper liquidation of Boyd directly affected appellants' rights and (1) Boyd is entitled to return of its charter; (2) its holding company has an interest in its subsidiary; (3) its shareholders and directors are entitled to authorize consolidation and may be liable for losses to Boyd; (4) its loan customers and guarantors are entitled to proper court approval of bad or doubtful loan obligation sales; and (5) its unsecured creditors and depositors are entitled to respondent Commissioner's determination liquidation is in their best interests and to deposits of liquidation.

Respondent Commissioner argues appellants' petition constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the trial court order because appellants lack standing.

To obtain a writ of mandamus, petitioner must meet the statutory standing requirements of Minn.Stat. §§ 586.01-586.02 (1982).

These requirements include (1) the existence of a law specifically requiring the performance of an act which is a duty imposed on a person resulting from the office that person occupies. Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (1982), and (2) a showing of a public wrong especially injurious to the petitioner and that petitioner will benefit from an order compelling performance of the duty. Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (1982).

Friends of Animals & Their Environment (FATE) v. Nichols, 350 N.W.2d 489, 491 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (emphasis deleted), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984). The trial court in its memorandum concluded appellants failed to meet either element:

To meet the first standing requirement, existence of a law requiring performance, Petitioners must first show some negative implication to the pertinent law, i.e. that the Commissioner can restore possession of property to the State Bank of Boyd after he has taken it away. Then they must show that that illusory duty is void of discretion. The objective of the Petitioners is neither the subject of a law, nor an undiscretionary duty of the Commissioner. They fail the first test of standing to bring a Writ of Mandamus.

The second standing test demands a showing of a public wrong, injurious to the Petitioners, which can be relieved through mandamus. They simply have failed to indicate with any specificity what wrongful act was committed or how they would benefit from the requested relief. In their role as...