Court Opinion

ID: 9765473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:03:33.965685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.249084
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I would not reach the constitutional questions in this case. Instead, I would reverse due to the fundamental failure of the commissioner to enter any findings of fact sufficient to support his order. When we have reviewed administrative decisions, we have required strict compliance with a statute that requires underlying findings of fact. See First Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. of Malvern v. Arkansas Savings & Loan Assoc. Bd., 257 Ark. 985, 521 S.W.2d 542 (1975); First State Bldg. & Loan Assoc. v. Arkansas Savings & Loan Bd., 257 Ark. 599, 518 S.W.2d 507 (1975). The requirement that the underlying facts be stated is primarily for the benefit of the reviewing court and the failure to comply with this requirement is not a minor and inconsequential matter. Arkansas Savings & Loan Assoc. Bd. v. Central Ark. Savings & Loan Assoc., 256 Ark. 846, 510 S.W.2d 872 (1974). The reason we must have sufficient findings of fact is to have an effective appellate review. If there are no facts, or insufficient findings of fact, we cannot say what the basis of the order is. A comparison of some of the commissioner’s findings of fact with the statutory language shows that the commissioner has recited legal conclusions rather than explicit facts: Statutory language: Public convenience and necessity will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed full service branch. Findings of fact: Public convenience and necessity will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed branch. Evidence provided by applicant and cited in the Examiner’s Investigation indicate that applicant plans to offer all the products of a full service branch. Statutory language: Local conditions ássure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed full service branch. Findings of fact: Local conditions assure a reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed full service branch. The Examiner’s Investigation for the proposed branch provides evidence that there are presently four financial institutions in Izard County but only two in the proposed trade area. Statutory language: Suitable physical facilities will be provided for the full service branch. Findings of fact: The Bank of North Arkansas has provided evidence that suitable physical facilities will be provided for the full service branch. These are not “findings of fact” and are clearly inadequate to assist this court in reviewing the case. This involves an order allowing two banks to operate in a small community of eleven hundred people. Was it a political decision? We will never know. It certainly does not have a sound factual basis to justify it. The majority sets a bad precedent in approving such a baseless order. The statute which provides no hearing will be necessary on a branch bank application, Ark. Code Ann. § 23-32-1203(e) (Supp. 1987), radically alters the power of the commissioner to decide the economic well-being of banks and communities. But it was surely not intended to result in unbridled, unchecked, and unaccountable use of power by one person. The legislature, no doubt, intended for us to see that this power is not arbitrarily used. We have failed at the first opportunity. I might point out that, while this law only allows branch banks to be established in the bank’s own county, that will soon be changed. After December 31,1993, a branch may be established in a county contiguous to the county where the bank’s principal office is located. After December 31,1998, the branches may be established anywhere in the state. Ark. Code Ann. § 23-32-1202(b)(3) and (4) (Supp. 1989).