Bank of the Lakes, Langley v. First State Bank, Ketchum

Citations: 708 P.2d 1089; 1985 OK 81; 1985 Okla. LEXIS 150Docket: 61954

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma; October 8, 1985; Oklahoma; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves an appeal by Bank of the Lakes against the Banking Board of Oklahoma's approval of First State Bank's application to operate a branch in Disney, Oklahoma. Bank of the Lakes protested this decision, arguing that it has standing under 6 O.S.Supp. 1983. 207 due to potential economic harm from increased competition. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that Bank of the Lakes did not demonstrate a legitimate injury from the order, affirming the Board's decision to grant First State Bank's application while also approving Bank of the Lakes' separate application for a detached facility in Disney. Bank of the Lakes contended that a provision in the statutes prohibited establishing a second bank branch in an area already served by another bank, asserting that it had a three-mile buffer zone around its operations. The court reiterated that mere competition does not constitute sufficient grounds for aggrievement under the relevant statute, thus upholding the Banking Board's ruling.

The Oklahoma Legislature's amendment to Section 207 of the Banking Code in 1982 limits the right to appeal to those aggrieved by an order of the Banking Board or Commissioner. First State and the Banking Board contend that Bank of the Lakes lacks standing to appeal, a position the court supports. The original statute was derived from New Mexico's Banking Code, and Oklahoma courts are guided by New Mexico's interpretations of similar statutes. The New Mexico Supreme Court's decisions established that standing requires a demonstration of legal rights being invaded rather than just economic loss from lawful competition. In a subsequent ruling, the New Mexico court clarified that a complainant must show actual or imminent injury to achieve standing.

The court concludes that Bank of the Lakes does not meet the standing criteria since its claims are insufficient under the law. The amended Oklahoma statute specifically excludes claims based solely on increased competition, which applies to Bank of the Lakes' situation. Although Bank of the Lakes has a legitimate interest in its operational areas, it faces no actual injury beyond lawful competition with First State. The court emphasizes that First State is legally entitled to compete, and any business decline for Bank of the Lakes results from this lawful competition rather than an infringement of rights. Moreover, Bank of the Lakes is not chartered in Disney; it is based in Langley, reinforcing that the competition is lawful and does not constitute a legal injury.

Section 501(B)(3) in conjunction with 415(A)(1) allows the Banking Board to issue certificates to competitor banks, permitting them to operate in areas served by existing banks. The case Lakeside State Bank v. Banking Board clarifies that a branch bank's location differs from that of a main bank office, and the regulatory procedures for establishing a primary bank or detached facility are distinct from those for branch banks. The interpretation by Bank of the Lakes, which sought to impose a three-mile buffer zone, misinterprets the statutes' clear language. Sufficient evidence supports the conclusion to uphold the Banking Board's order, which has been affirmed by the court with concurrence from several justices. Notably, 6 O.S.Supp. 1983. 501 outlines the definitions and operational limits for main banks and branches, while 6 O.S.Supp. 1983. 415 specifies the regulations for detached facilities.