Court Opinion

ID: 9570921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:27:35.303385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:27.779148
License: Public Domain

Todd, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirming opinion herein except that portion thereof which seeks to apply the standard of Minn. St. 45.07 applicable to an application for a new bank charter as the criteria for a change of location pursuant to Minn. St. 47.10.
In approving the statutory criteria we necessarily take with it the interpretations that our court has placed on the statutory criteria. I am particularly concerned with the “reasonable public demand” criteria. We have many decisions attempting to rationalize these words. In State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities Comm. 145 Minn. 221, 224, 176 N. W. 759, 760 (1920), we said:
“It is difficult to give to the words ‘reasonable public demand’ a clearer meaning than they carry without definition. They do not necessarily imply a public outcry or agitation for additional banking facilities. They do not necessarily negative the existence of adequate banking accommodations. They suppose upon the part of the community a desire of a character so substantial as to make the bank welcome and insure an amount of business sufficient to promise it success. The demand may come from the natural desire of the community and upon its own initiative, or it may be the result of propaganda.”
In addition, in In re Application of Jackson, 277 Minn. 293, *133295, 152 N. W. 2d 472, 474 (1967), we set forth the following considerations to be made in interpreting this phrase:
“* * * (1) Number of banks already serving the area in which the proposed bank would locate; (2) size of area; (3) population of area; (4) wealth of residents of area; (5) commercial and industrial development of area; (6) potential growth of area; (7) adequacy of the services being provided by existing banks compared to the needs of residents and the services to be offered by proposed bank; (8) capability of existing banks to handle potential growth of the area; (9) convenience of the location of existing banks to residents of the area as compared to convenience of the proposed bank; (10) size of banks in area; (11) dates when the banks in the area were established; and (12) the number of persons in area who desire to use the proposed bank and the amount of business they would generate.”
Obviously, in examining these standards they have little application to an existing bank. The objecting bank argues that since there is a new trade area the application should be considered as an application for a new charter. It should be pointed out that the proposed move involves a change of physical location of approximately two miles within the city of West St. Paul.
It is a fiction to argue that there were separate trade territories of these banks who were only a mile apart before. Both serve the same basic trade area. Admittedly, the petitioning bank was somewhat oriented to a northern part of the community and the objector had a slight orientation to the southern part of the community. The fact of the matter is that the residential and business areas of this community are served presently by both banks.
Consequently, if the commission is to set a standard, and I agree it has a right to do so, I would change the terminology and take out of the standard the question of public demand. A reasonable demand test, oriented basically to the customers of the *134petitioning bank, recognizing its needs to serve them, should be adopted. It does not appear to me that there is a great deal of public concern in this move. Both banks have substantial footings, and I think it is difficult for the objector to establish that either bank’s solvency will be affected by the move.
I would limit the evidence on this question of reasonable demand to the survey of the present customers of the petitioning bank since their attitude on the move could have the most substantial effect on the solvency of the bank. Further, if the objecting bank can produce a survey of its own customers that a large number of them would change their banking business to the petitioning bank at its new location, this would be evidence to be considered as affecting the solvency of the objecting bank. I think it would be much more appropriate to limit the area of inquiry, as I have stated, rather than the broad ramifications which accompany the criteria for the establishment of a new bank within a given area.
Otis, Justice (concurring specially).
I join in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Todd.
Peterson, Justice (concurring specially).
I join in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Todd.
Yetka, Justice (concurring specially).
I join in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Todd.