Court Opinion

ID: 9752587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:17:57.568999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.943703
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
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 Op., at 329, 956 A.2d at 966. 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 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 tó 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. *331See id., at 872; see also West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 571 Pa. 503, 812 A.2d 1172, 1186 (2002) (agency decision on intervention will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse of discretion).
Based on the foregoing, I would affirm the Commonwealth Court.