Friday, May 21, 2010

Kentucky Supreme Court: CUs Can Have FOM Based on Geography

The Kentucky Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that stated the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) lacked authority to grant fields of membership (FOM) based on geography.

Home Federal Savings and Loan Association sued the Kentucky regulator arguing that state law did not permit community-based FOMs for state-chartered credit unions.

When the legislature amended the Kentucky credit union statute in 1984, it changed the field of membership requirement so that "[c]redit union membership shall be limited to persons having a common bond of similar occupations, association or interest."

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Home Federal, after concluding that DFI was no longer authorized to charter credit unions with geographic fields of membership. The court found that 1984 amendments to the statute omitted the model act's language that expressly allowed geographic and several other specific fields of membership. This omission caused the lower court to conclude that the legislature had "considered and rejected the option of allowing community based, or geographic, fields of membership" when it amended the statutes .

However, the Kentucky Supreme Court in its opinion concluded that the legislative change in the field of membership went “from specific, narrow allowable categories to more generic language. This indicates a legislative intent to broaden the allowable categories of membership … so long as they could reasonably be understood to fit within the current language of the statute.”

The Supreme Court decision focused around the concept of common bond of shared interest.

The Supreme Court opined that "a group of persons share the same hobby or enjoy novels by the same author, while technically a shared interest, is insufficient to demonstrate the common bond required to form a credit union. The shared interest in such cases does not link such persons in any substantial way or create any sort of financial or legal interdependence."

However, geographic connection is different. "Persons who live in the same neighborhood or rural farming district do have a concrete shared interest that demonstrates a common bond."

Thus, the court found a geographic or community field of membership is permissible under state law.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 

The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.