# The Attorney General of Texas August 15, 1979

MARKWHITE AttorneyGeaeml

HonorableRobert I%. Stewart Commissioner Department of Banking 2601North Lamar Austin, Texas 76705 OpinionNo. RW-44
Re: Definition of “ central building”in article 342-903, V.T.C.S.

Dear Commissioner Stewart:
You have asked our opinionregardingthe meaning of the termvcentral building,” as it isused $narticle 342-903, V.T.C.S., which provides inpart:

No State, national or private bank shall engage in businessin mom than one place, maintain any branch office, or cash checks or receive deposits except in its own banking house. For purposes of this article

‘banking house’ means the building in whose offices the business of the bank is conducted and which is functionslly .oneplace ofbusiness, including 63 office facilities whose nearest wall is located withii five hundred (500) feet of the nearest wall of the central building and is physically .connected to ‘the central building by tunnel, pamageway or hallway providiig direct access between the central building and the connected office facility or by closed circuit television or pneumatic tube or other physically connected delivery device, and (b)in addition, if authorized in the manner her&after provided, not more than one (D automabile drive-in facility whose nearest boundary is located within two. thousand (2,000)feet of the nearest wall of the central building but more than five hundred (500) feet therefrom and is connected to the central building by tunnel, passageway or hallway providii direct access between ‘the central buildii and the connected automobile drive-in facility or by closed circuit

. . televmion,. pneumatic tube cr other physically connected delivery device. The entire bankii house shall for all purposes under the law be considered one

p. .130HonorableRobert K.Stewart - PageTwo .(NW-44)

integral banking house. The term 5automcbiiedrive-in facility ’ as herein used shall mean a facility offering bankingservices solely to persons who arrive at such facility in an automobile and remain therein duringthe transaction of business with the bank.
Youspecifically inquire whether the term “ central building”encompasses the entire buildingwithin which a bank’sbusiness is conducted or whether it refers only to that part of the building actually used to conduct the bank’s business. The cardinal rule in construing the language of a statute is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Minton v. Frank, 545 B.W.2d442 (Tex. 1976). In so doii, it is appropriate to look first to the statute itself. Jones v. Del Andersen & Associates, 539S.W.Bd 346 (Tex. l976). Although the term “ central building” is not specifically defined, its use in context with other terms in the statute is consistent throughout. Office and drivein facilities are never referred to as “buildings.” That word is used only in the term “ central building,” which ‘refers to the phrase “the building in whose offices the business of the bank is conducted.” (Emphasis added). The latter phrase is used to define the term “banking house,” which includes office and drive-in facilities not located in the central buildiig. The statute consistently distinguishes between buildings and additional facilities. This evidences the ~legislative intent that the entire building in whose offices the bank%business is mainly conducted is the “ central building.” Webelieve that the term “ central building” is not limited to that portion of the building actually occupied by the bank for the conduct of its business; Although we have been unable to find any case directly on point; Great Plains Life Insurance Co. v. First National Bank of Lubbock, 316 B.W.Bd96 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo lSS6.writ rePdn.r.e.1, involved a drive-in facilitv ccnsistimz of leased soace in a building mected by pneumat& tubes to the bankbuildingproper.’ ?‘he court in ihat case quoted with approval the Kentucky case of.Marvinv. Kentucky Title ‘Trust Co., 216, Ky. 135, 291S.W. 17, 16(KY. Ct. App. 1927). Both the Texas court and the Kentucky court apparently recognized the distinctions between the main bank’building and any other outlying additional office facilities. See also Attorney General Opinion M-649 (1971).We note that it is not uncommon for ~banks to occupy only a portion of the buildii that constitutes their banking house, the remainder of the building being occupied by other ~entities. In a prior Attorney General Opinion concerning the propriety of a bank’s acquiring a certain building for’its bankinghouse, this office stated: ”

Wecannot ‘close our eyes to the fact that in many instances - perhaps in most instances - our better bsnks .occupy their own buildings consisting of several, sometimes many stories, ‘and much, if not most of the flcor space is not actually u&d by the bank in conducting its banking business but is rented out. There can be no valid objection to this if the major good faith purpose of the acquisition or construction of the building be to provide a bankii housefor the institution. Attorney General OpinionO-2691(1940).
Youinformus that you would construe the entire buildingto be the central building, although the bank might occupy only the groundfloor. Youapplied a similar construction

P- 131.HonorableRobert E. Stewart - PageThree (RI+44)

in approving an office facility of the Greenway Bank d( Trust ‘tobe located Withinfive hundred feet of the nearest w.allof the large building complex wherein were located the bank’s main banking offices, To the extent necessary to resolve ambiguities in the meaning of the statute, the construction placed upon.it by the agency charged with its administration is entitled to weight in the courts. Ex parte Roloff, 510B.W.%d 913(Tex.. 1974);Cslvert v. Kadane, 427S.W.%d 605(Tex. 1966).
Youask whether a psrticular complex knownas Allen Center constitutes a central building as that term is used in article 342-903, V.T.C.B. The answer to your question requires the resolution of fact questions, which cannot be done in the opinionprocess. Bee Attorney General Opinions H-llO6 (1977)iM-649(lS7B. -

Youalso inquire whether the subterranean walls of a central building may be used as measuring points between the central building and the proposed office facility. We believe that the subterranean wslls of the central building may be used as the measuring point. This recognizes the common practice in modern architecture. of incorporating greenbelt landscaping and building setbacks for aesthetic purposes The result is that subterranean walls of such buildings extend farther th@ndo the building walls located above the surface of the ground. Wesee no prohibition in the statute egainst the use of the subterranean walls in the central building as the measuring point in the application of the distance restrictions imposed by law.
On the contrary, the statute provides that the connection between the central building and the office facilities may be by passageway, hallw+y,.cr tunneL V.T.C.B. art. 342-903. Thelatter term implies subterranean structure, ,and.sugges&!%! the~legislature did not intend to limit’& relationshmbetween the central buildins and the office facilitv to aboveground structures. Indeed, many bsnks use’ undergro&d floor space in the& banking houses. Bee Houston National Bank v. Adair, 207 S.W.Bd ‘374.(Tex. 1946)(bank located its safe-&&sit boxes in the basement of its building). We’do not believe, however, that the statute should be construed to &low~ two or in&buildings to constitute one central. building’ mealy ‘because thdy are connected by tunhel, passageway, or underground driveway. such a broad construction could run.afoul **qf** the statutory and constitutional proscriptions that no bank shall enage in business in.more thanone place. Tex. Const. hart. XVI, S 16;V.T.C.S. art. 342-903. It is well settled that, to’ the extent that a statute may be ambiguous.. it should be given that construction which will render it constitutional. Key Westein Life Insurance &J. v. State Board of Insurance, 350 S.W%d 639~(Tex.

1961). Wealso emohasixe that anv liven bank consistinn of the cenirai buildina. and any additional office .& drive& fachi&s must be used & a .unit, devoted to in ’ common purpose, and that they must together constitute but one integral banking house. V.T.C.S. art. 342-903; Attorney General OpinionV-1046 (1950);~ Letter Advisory No. 96 (1975). S~,MM.ARY

The term “ central building,” as it .is used in article” 342-903, V.T.C.S., encompa&es the entire ,building in whose offices the

P. 132HonorableRobert R.Stewart - Page Four (Mw-44)

business of the bank is conducted, and it is not limited onlyto that Portion of the building that is actually being used to conduct the bank’sbusiness. The term also permits the subterranean walls of the central building to be used as.8 measuring point for purposes of determining whether additional office facilities are within the distance limitations imposed by the statute.

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas
JOHNW. FAINTER,

JR. First Assistant Attorney General
TEDL. HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Pqsred byTomRutledge Assistant Attorney General
APPROVRD: ‘

. OPINION

COMMITTEE.
C. Robert Heath, Chairman DavidB. Brooks SusanGarrison RickGilpm TomPollan Wiiam G Reid TomRutledge Bruce Youngblood

p. 133