SUN BANK OF OCALA, A DULY CHARTERED BANK LOCATED AND DOING BUSINESS IN OCALA, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & FINANCE, GERALD A. LEWIS, AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, MILTON L. COPELAND, ET AL., AS ORGANIZERS AND PROPOSED DIRECTORS OF THE CITIZENS FIRST BANK OF OCALA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, AND G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, HEARING OFFICER, APPELLEES
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.
Sun Bank lacked standing to challenge a bank charter approval because it received notice as a substantially affected party, participated in the public hearing, but failed to file a protest and thus never became a party to the proceedings.
A bank that receives notice as a substantially affected party, participates in a public hearing, but fails to file a protest does not become a party and cannot later intervene to challenge the charter approval.
[1] A substantially affected party that receives notice of a public hearing and participates therein but fails to file a protest does not become a party to administrative pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSun Bank of Ocala received notice as a substantially affected party of a public hearing on Citizens First Bank's application for a bank charter under …
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 Party Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from orders denying appellant’s motion to intervene in proceedings on the application of appellee Citizens First Bank of Ocala [Citizens] under Florida Statutes Chapter 659 for a bank charter, and orders entered subsequent thereto. The question presented is whether lack of formal notice and service on appellant Sun Bank [Sun] vitiates the proceedings leading to the approval of Citizens’ application. We hold that Sun was not a party, that service on Sun was not required, and further, that actual knowledge of principals of Sun Bank of the proceedings for many months prior to the attempt to intervene, forecloses Sun’s rights in this regard.
Sun was served as a “substantially affected party” with notice of the public hearing held pursuant to Rule 3-3.42, F.A.C., Supp. # 70 at 237. Representatives of Sun attended and participated in that public hear ing. As a substantially affected party, Sun was entitled, and had ample opportunity, to file a protest1 to Citizens’ application, but failed to do so and did not become a party as defined under Florida Statute § 120.-52(1).
Accordingly, the order below is AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur. . Compare, Gadsden State Bank v. Lewis, 348 So. 2d 343 (Fla.1st DCA 1977).