Title: Pennsylvania Bankers Assoc., Aplt v. Department of Banking (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 31, 32 AND 33 MAP 2007
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: September 25, 2008

[J-18-A-B-C-2008] [M.O. - BAER, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION AND THE PENNSYLVANIA BUSINESS BANK, Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND TRUMARK FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, Appellees PENNSYLVANIA CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION AND CORRY JAMESTOWN CREDIT UNION AND FREEDOM CREDIT UNION, Intervenors : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 31 MAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court Dated March 1, 2006 at No. 42 MD 2005 Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part the Department of Banking Decision Dated December 22, 2004 at No. APP 2003-02. 893 A.2d 864 ARGUED: March 4, 2008 PENNSYLVANIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, PENNSYLVANIA BUSINESS BANK, FULTON BANK AND PREMIER BANK, Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Appellees PENNSYLVANIA CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION AND FREEDOM CREDIT UNION, Intervenors : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 32 MAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court Dated March 1, 2006 at No. 98 MD 2005 Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part the Department of Banking Decision Dated December 22, 2004. 893 A.2d 864 ARGUED: March 4, 2008 [J-18-A-B-C-2008]- 2 PENNSYLVANIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION AND THE PENNSYLVANIA BUSINESS BANK, Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, Appellees FREEDOM CREDIT UNION AND PENNSYLVANIA CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION, Intervenors : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 33 MAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court Dated March 1, 2005 at No. 157 CD 2005 Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part the Department of Banking Decision Dated December 22, 2004 at No. APP 2003-01. 893 A.2d 864 ARGUED: March 4, 2008 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the Commonwealth Court’s en banc opinion, thereby holding the Pennsylvania Department of Banking “improperly revoked the Banks’ intervenor status after not giving them notice that standing and intervention remained undecided and subject to proof ….” Majority Slip Op., at 17. To the contrary, I believe the Banks had sufficient notice their party status was undecided. The presiding officer “granted” the Banks’ petitions to intervene subject to 1 Pa. Code § 35.31(b). Pennsylvania Bankers Association v. Pennsylvania Department of Banking, 893 A.2d 864, 867 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Section 35.31(b) states, “Only to avoid detriment to the public interest will any presiding officer tentatively permit participation in a hearing in advance of, and then only subject to, the granting by the agency of a petition to intervene.” 1 Pa. Code § 35.31(b). Based on the presiding [J-18-A-B-C-2008]- 3 officer’s order’s conditional language, I would find the Banks only obtained permission to participate in a hearing pursuant to § 35.31(b). Further, the presiding officer’s order expressly stated the Banks’ party status was subject to § 35.31(b). See Pennsylvania Bankers Association, at 867 n.5. Therefore, I believe the Banks had sufficient notice their party status remained unresolved and subject to proof. The Banks simply failed to produce any evidence in support of intervention, and I fail to see a manifest abuse of discretion under these circumstances. See id., at 872; see also West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 812 A.2d 1172, 1186 (Pa. 2002) (agency decision on intervention will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse of discretion). Based on the foregoing, I would affirm the Commonwealth Court.