15-461
Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-461
Length: 716 wordsOfficial source
Cite as 15 Mont. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 461
Opinion No. 461.
Building and Loan Associations--With.
d"awals--Payment of Before New
Loans.
HELD: A building and loan associ-
ation, on withdrawal notice, may not
use cash collection to make new loans
before meeting all demands of members
for withdrawal.
I<~ebruary 16, 1934
You have suhmitted the following
question: "Can an association that is
on withdrawal notice make loans from
the funds collected?"
Section 12, Chapter 57 of the Laws
of 1927, as amended by Chapter 11.
Laws of 1933, reads in part:
"Every building and loan associa-
tion is a creature of the law having
certain powers and duties of a natur-
al person and as such has power: * * *
"(8)
'.ro permit members to with-
draw all or part of their stock cred-
its at such times and upon such terms,
as the constitution and by-laws may
provide; provided * • ... Applications
for withdrawals are to he registered
on the books of the association in the
order received and one-half of all cash
colle<;tions, not required to meet out-
standing contracts, must be used for
the payment of the matured stock
and of the withdrawals in the order
registered; provided, however, that
the other half of such collections each
month may be used for the payment
of withdrawals other than in the order
registered, but no member shall re-
ceive more than one hundred dollars
($100.00) in anyone month other
OPINIONS OF THE A'l'TORNEY GE~ERAL
319
than by payment of an application
for withdrawal in the order regis-
tered.
The term "Outstanding con-
tracts" includes the costs and expens-
es of operation, completion of loans.
IJa~'ment of taxes and assessments and
necessary remodeling and repairs on
l)roperties owned by or mortgaged to
the association. repayment of all hor-
rowed money and all fixed charges."
The statute uses the phrase "all cash
collections."
One-half "must be used"
• • • for the payment of withdrawals
in the order registered, and the other
half "may be used" for the va~'ment of
withdrawals other than in the order
registered, etc.
The only reservation
which is permitted out of "all cash col-
lections" is for "outstanding contracts,"
which term is specifically defined by
the statute and as so defined does not
include the making of new loans.
H is my opinion, therefore, that your
question should iJe answered in the
negath'e and that the withholding of
payments to members who desire with-
rlrawals when there is money out of
cash collections not needed in order to
meet outstanding contracts is in yiola-
tion of the law.
One of the purposes of a building
and loan association is to provide a
system
whereb~' people
of limited
means through thrift and economy and
small periodical payments may provide
homes or funds for use in time of need.
Good citizenship is thereiJy promoted.
To withhold from such people in times
of dire extremity the right to withdraw
the funds needed and which they have
sa ved for that very purpose is to ignore
not only the statute hut the real pur-
pose of building and loan associations
and the reason for their existence,
which is permitted by grace of the law.
Before making new loans and thereby
giving financial relief to persons who
are not members, a building and loan
associa tion must first discharge the
duties it owes to its members.
The right of withdrawal is an abso-
lute one vested by statute and cannot
be arbitrarily withheld except insofar
as the statute permits.
(9 C. J. p. 938.
Sec. 35.)
"Statutes in all jurisdictions
give to shareholders of building and
loan associations the.right to withdraw.
The right does not exist at common
law, and therefore it is restricted to
the terms of the by-law or statute and
in case of conflict between them the
statute must prevail. The by-laws may
enlarge the privilege granted by stat-
ute, hut may not restrict it, therefore
compliance with the statute is all that
is necessary." Sundheim Building and
Loan Associations, 3rd Ed., Sec. 157.
(Fitzgerald v. State Mut. Bldg. & Loan
Ass'n. 76 N. J. Eq., 137, 79 Atl. 454;
Hooz's Appeal, 109 Pa. 592, 1 Atl. 36;
Bergman v. St. Paul ~iut. Bldg. Ass'n.,
2!l :\iinn. 275, 13 N. W. 120; Rhods Y.
Hoernerstown, etc. Ass'n., 82 Pa. 180.)