WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI BEACH, A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE HENRY L. BALABAN AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association sought to prohibit a state circuit court judge from enforcing a temporary restraining order that prevented Washington Federal from proceeding before the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. The Florida Supreme Court held that state courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with federal agency proceedings involving federally regulated financial institutions, as such matters are preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause.
A state court is without authority to interfere with proceedings before a federal agency that regulates federal financial institutions. The issuance of the restraining order by the state judge was error because federal law preempts state court interference with matters involving the regulation and supervision of federal savings and loan associations.
[1] State courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings conducted by federal agencies pursuant to federal law.
[2] Federal law preempts state regulation of federal savings and loan associations, including the establishment of branch offices.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state court was without authority to interfere with a hearing called by and before a Federal agency regulated by Federal law”
This establishes the core holding that state courts lack jurisdiction over federal agency proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 20, 1973, the state circuit court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Washington Federal from proceeding before the Federal Home …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in prohibition seeking to restrain the respondent from exercising jurisdiction to enforce an injunction issued by respondent on June 20, 1973, and from otherwise exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner with respect or regard to its relations with regulations or supervision by or appearance before the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and its agents and representatives. Petitioner contends sub judice that the respondent court, being a state court, is without jurisdiction to interfere by injunction or otherwise with proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Title 12 U.S.Code, Section 1464 et seq. relating to federal financial institutions.
On June 20, 1973, the respondent in a case styled, “Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami Beach, Plaintiff v. Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., Comptroller and American Federal Savings and Loan Association, Intervenor,” Dade County Circuit Court Case Number 73-6546, issued a temporary restraining order which provides, inter alia:
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pending further order of this Court, the Plaintiff and its officers, agents, servants and employees, and each of them are hereby enjoined and restrained from proceeding before the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on Plaintiff’s application for permission to establish a branch office at Kane Concourse and Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, now set to be heard before said Board or its designated agent or hearing officer on June 21, 1973, in Atlanta, Georgia, and from taking any other action whatsoever in support of said application to establish a branch office at the aforesaid location until such time as all proceedings in this cause have been fully determined and decided according to law.”
Rule Nisi in Prohibition issued from this Court and respondent filed a return to the order to show cause.
The effect of the temporary restraining order entered by Judge Balaban was stayed by this Court on June 21, 1973. In oral argument in this cause at the bar of this Court, all counsel involved have conceded that the hearing before the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in Atlanta was duly held and Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association participated in the hearing by virtue of the stay order of this Court hereinabove-referred to. It, therefore, appears that the propriety vel non of the restraining order is now moot, the Atlanta hearing having been completed.
However, by caveat, we point out that the issuance of the restraining order by respondent was error in that the state court was without authority to interfere with a hearing called by and before a Federal agency regulated by Federal law.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States provides :
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be *17the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall he bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
By virtue of Title 12 U.S.Code, Section 1464 et seq., the Federal Government has pre-empted the regulation and supervision of federal savings and loan associations and the organization, incorporation, examination and operation of the same and location of offices and branch offices of federal savings and loan associations.
Accordingly, the Rule Nisi in Prohibition is made absolute.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Standard Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & K-Mart Corp., 463 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ssociations than did the Board’s regulations and, thus, created an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the due-on-sale regulation. In Washington Federal Savings & Loan Assn, of Miami Beach v. Balaban, 281 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1973), the Florida Supreme Court addressed the question of federal preemption of the state’s efforts to regulate Washington Federal’s opening of a branch office in Florida in ostensible violation of Florida law. Holding that the state court cou…
-
Dep't OF Banking & Fin. v. Standard Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 488 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1986)…tary stated that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate interstate branch banking. We agree with the district court’s opinion, and reaffirm our decision in Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Balaban, 281 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1973). In that case, the circuit court enjoined Washington Federal from seeking the Federal Home Loan Bank Board’s permission to establish a branch office. This Court granted a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court was without jur…