Woodard v. Broadway Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of LosAngeles

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtVALLEE; SHINN, P. J., and WOOD
Citation244 P.2d 467,111 Cal.App.2d 218
PartiesWOODARD et al. v. BROADWAY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N OF LOS ANGELES et al. Civ. 18769.
Decision Date19 May 1952

Page 467

244 P.2d 467
111 Cal.App.2d 218
WOODARD et al.
v.
BROADWAY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N OF LOS ANGELES et al.
Civ. 18769.
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
May 19, 1952.
Hearing Denied July 17, 1952.

Page 468

[111 Cal.App.2d 219] Thomas L. Griffith, Jr., Bishop & Hoffmann, and Sylvester Hoffmann, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Russell H. Pray and Eric A. Rose, Long Beach, for respondents.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appeal by defendants from (1) a judgment which declared invalid the election of the individual defendants to the board of directors of defendant Broadway Federal Savings & Loan Association of Los Angeles, directed that a new election be held, and appointed a master for the purpose of supervising the election proceedings; (2) an order denying their motion for a new trial; and (3) an order denying their motions to amend the conclusions of law, to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action, and for entry of another and different judgment.

Defendant Broadway Federal Savings & Loan Association of Los Angeles, a federal savings and loan association, was chartered on November 25, 1946, by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board 1 under section 5 of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 2 and is engaged in the business of home financing in California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.

[111 Cal.App.2d 220] Plaintiffs and the individual defendants are members of defendant association. Some of the plaintiffs and the individual defendants were nominees for the positions of director of defendant association. On February 24, 1950, a special meeting was held for the principal purpose of conducting the annual election of directors. The individual defendants were elected directors at the meeting.

On February 27, 1950, plaintiffs brought this action under sections 2236 et seq. of the Corporations Code of California 3 to determine the validity of the election of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs challenged the manner in which the election and balloting was conducted, the right of the secretary to determine the maximum number of proxy votes certain members were entitled to cast and the validity and effect of those cast and counted. No application or petition was filed by plaintiffs with the Home Loan Bank Board challenging the validity of the election.

The court adjudged that the election was null and void, of 'no force and effect,' for the reason it was conducted contrary to the charter and bylaws of defendant association

Page 469

and the laws of California, and that the individual defendants had not been elected to the office of director at the election, and ordered that a new election be called.

Defendants contend that plaintiffs have an administrative remedy which they have not initiated or exhausted, that under the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested in the Home Loan Bank Board and the superior court had no jurisdiction. The contention must be upheld.

Where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body, and this remedy must be exhausted before the courts will act. [111 Cal.App.2d 221] Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 292, 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts. Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at page 293, 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715; United States v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 189, 194, 120 P.2d 26. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a statute provides an administrative remedy, even though the terms of the statute do not make the exhaustion of the remedy a condition of the right to resort to the courts. First Nat. Bank of Greeley v. Board of County Com'rs, 264 U.S. 450, 44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784, 788, 789. The doctrine, whenever applicable, requires not merely the initiation of prescribed administrative procedures; it requires pursuing them to their appropriate conclusion and awaiting their final outcome before seeking judicial intervention. Home Loan Bank Board v. Mallonee, 9 Cir., 196 F.2d 336; Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 767, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 91 L.Ed. 1796, 1806; Red River Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 69 App.D.C. 1, 98 F.2d 282, 287, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 625, 59 S.Ct. 86, 83 L.Ed. 400. '[I]t lies within the power of the administrative agency to determine in the first instance, and before judicial relief may be obtained, whether a given controversy falls within the statutory grant of jurisdiction. United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161, 24 S.Ct. 621, 48 L.Ed. 917; Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160, 47 S.Ct. 553, 71 L.Ed. 978; Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 58 S.Ct. 963, 82 L.Ed. 1408; South Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Munoz, 1 Cir., 28 F.2d 820; 48 Yale L.J. 981, 992-995.' United States v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 189, 195, 120 P.2d 26, 29. The importance of giving the administrative agency the first opportunity to determine the extent of its jurisdiction and to decide in a final way matters falling therein is discussed in Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605, and S.S.W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America, D.C.Cir., 191 F.2d 658. See, also, Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 245, 67 S.Ct. 1552, 91 L.Ed. 2030, which held that before an action could be brought to enjoin a conservator of a federal savings and loan association appointed by the Board under the rules and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Williams v. Hacla, No. B164111.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 12, 2004
    ...before bringing a court action. (Id. at pp. 1207-1208, 234 Cal.Rptr. 23.) Likewise, in Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S. & L. Assn. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 244 P.2d 467, the court construed permissive language in regulations promulgated by the Home Loan Bank Board (board) under the Home Owners......
  • City of Oakland v. Police, A136769
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2014
    ...than civil service charter provisions and related commission rules at issue]; Woodard v. Broadway Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 223–225, 244 P.2d 467 [challenge to the validity of an election in the savings and loan context must be brought first to the Home Loan Bank......
  • California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd., No. S041269
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 17, 1995
    ...review procedures. (United States v. Superior Court (1941) 19 Cal.2d 189, 194, 120 P.2d 26; Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S & L Assn. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 221, 244 P.2d 467.) As noted above, in California a requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted is jurisdictional. (Abelleira......
  • Daurelle v. Traders Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Parkersburg, No. 10927
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 3, 1958
    ...and [143 W.Va. 682] Loan Association, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 311; Woodard v. Broadway Federal Savings and Loan Association of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 244 P.2d 467; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715. In 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Bodi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Williams v. Hacla, No. B164111.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 12, 2004
    ...before bringing a court action. (Id. at pp. 1207-1208, 234 Cal.Rptr. 23.) Likewise, in Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S. & L. Assn. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 244 P.2d 467, the court construed permissive language in regulations promulgated by the Home Loan Bank Board (board) under the Home Owners......
  • City of Oakland v. Police, A136769
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2014
    ...than civil service charter provisions and related commission rules at issue]; Woodard v. Broadway Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 223–225, 244 P.2d 467 [challenge to the validity of an election in the savings and loan context must be brought first to the Home Loan Bank......
  • California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd., No. S041269
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 17, 1995
    ...review procedures. (United States v. Superior Court (1941) 19 Cal.2d 189, 194, 120 P.2d 26; Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S & L Assn. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 221, 244 P.2d 467.) As noted above, in California a requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted is jurisdictional. (Abelleira......
  • Daurelle v. Traders Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Parkersburg, No. 10927
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 3, 1958
    ...and [143 W.Va. 682] Loan Association, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 311; Woodard v. Broadway Federal Savings and Loan Association of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.2d 218, 244 P.2d 467; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715. In 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Bodi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT