00-3162 Heritage Credit Union v. Office of Credit Unions

Listen to this article

“We conclude the plain language of 12 U.S.C. sec. 1771(a)(4) addresses the impact of conversion on a credit union’s ownership of its assets and its responsibility for its obligations, but does not address whether a former federal credit union may continue to operate in one state when it has chosen to be chartered under the laws of another state. The subsection makes clear that converting from a federal credit union to a state credit union does not affect the assets that Heritage owns or the obligations for which it is responsible; but the subsection says nothing suggesting that Heritage may continue to operate in a state in which it chooses not to be chartered regardless of the laws or regulations of that state. We therefore agree with the circuit court and the board that OCU’s denial of Heritage’s applications is not in conflict with 12 U.S.C. sec. 1771(a)(4), and there is, therefore, no violation of the supremacy clause.”

We also conclude that Wis. Stat. sec. 186.235(19) plainly authorizes OCU to control and supervise credit unions incorporated under the laws of other states. That is the only reasonable interpretation of the phrase “or other similar law.”

“We also conclude OCU has the authority under Wis. Stat. sec. 186.235(19) to regulate whether and where a foreign state credit union may operate branch offices in Wisconsin. The authority given OCU in this subsection is not limited in any particular way, and we see no basis for reading in a limitation. The legislature need not expressly grant OCU the authority to determine whether and where a foreign state credit union may operate branch offices in this state because the authority it expressly gives OCU to ‘control and supervise’ foreign state credit unions is broad and necessarily implies the authority to control and supervise their operation of branch offices in Wisconsin. …

“While the reciprocity Heritage desires may also be a reasonable basis on which to grant foreign state credit unions the right to operate branch offices in Wisconsin, it does not follow that the board acted unreasonably in affirming a narrower principle of reciprocity.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, O’Brien, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jerard J. Jensen, Madison; Thomas M. Pyper, Madison; Jeanne M. Armstrong, Madison

For Respondent: Stephen J. Nicks, Madison