Judges: WRITTEN BY: Don Stenberg, Attorney General Fredrick F. Neid, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 6/5/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Rex Holsapple, State Investment Officer
This is in answer to the various questions you have asked regarding legislative amendments to Neb. Rev. Stat. §
Section 35 of LB 932 provides:
72-1263. The state investment officer shall, out of funds available for investment, cause to be offered to all banks and building and loan associations in this state a time deposit open account in the amount of
onethree hundredfiftythousand dollars, except that any bank or building and loan association may accept such offer inamountsincrements of one hundred thousand dollars or fifty thousand dollars. Such deposit shall be available at any investment date to such banks or building and loan associations as are willing to meet the rate and other requirements set forth in the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act and make application therefor. The balance of the funds available for investment shall then be offered at the same rate to the banks and building and loan associations making application for and otherwise qualifying for such deposit. Such deposit shall be offered in increments of fifty thousand dollars. No deposit shall be made when doing so would violate a fiduciary obligation of the state or section72-1268.07 . All funds not investable under this section shall be invested as provided by section72-1246 . No one bank or building and loan association may receive for deposit a sum of more thanfive hundred thousandone million dollars or an amount not to exceed the amount covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, plus twice the institution's equity capital or net worth or as otherwise provided for by law, whichever is less.
The amendments of §
(3) Time deposit open account shall mean a bank account or a deposit with a building and loan association with respect to which there is in force a written contract which provides that neither the whole nor any part of such deposit may be withdrawn, by check or otherwise, prior to the date of maturity, which date shall not be less than thirty days after the date of deposit, or prior to the expiration of the period of notice which shall be given by the state investment officer in writing not less than thirty days in advance of withdrawal. The time deposit open account shall be uniform and shall be furnished by the state investment officer with prior approval of such form by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to each bank and building and loan association for execution;
It is asked, "[e]ven with the passage of LB 932, can a depository bank, because of their contract, stay in the TDOA program at a level below $300,000.00 until their maturity date?" As we have concluded, existing time deposit open accounts having amounts less than three hundred thousand dollars may be maintained consistent with statutory requirements. The terms and conditions of the deposit contracts are necessarily consistent with statutory requirements authorizing increments of one hundred thousand or fifty thousand dollars. To the extent the provisions of existing agreements are inconsistent with statutory provisions, the deposit accounts may be withdrawn upon thirty days notice, in writing, prior to withdrawal by the state investment officer. Accordingly, existing accounts with depository institutions may be maintained until maturity pursuant to the terms and conditions of existing contracts entered into between the state investment officer and the depository institutions.
Several similar questions are asked regarding application of contract provisions for existing time open accounts. You inquire whether the "automatically renewable" provision of existing agreements "mean that a participating bank can stay in the program indefinitely at a lower level unless they withdraw on their own or until we withdraw them?" Of course, the terms and conditions of a contract regarding renewal and/or duration are determined by provisions of the agreement. A contract written in clear an unambiguous language is not subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the contract, and the contract must be enforced as to its terms. McCormack v. Citibank, N.A.
You also ask whether the state investment officer is required by law to notify financial institutions with deposit accounts having less than $300,000.00 amounts to "increase their deposit or withdrawal?" We do not believe that the state investment officer has any duty to notify financial institutions to increase deposit amounts to $300,000.00. As we have concluded above, §
You have pointed out that the Nebraska Investment Council has promulgated rules and regulations establishing procedures for distribution of funds to financial institutions. The text of the existing regulation addressing distribution of fund amounts you have submitted provides as follows:Rule 1, Procedures for distribution of funds to banks and building and loan associations, Sections
72-1261 to72-1268 Nebraska statutes. "There shall be one plan. The plan, in a minimum of $100,000.00 to the maximum of $500,000.00 in increments of $100,000.00 will be offered to each bank and savings and association for one year."
It is inquired, "[d]o we need to write a (sic) new Rules and Regulations for Nebraska statutes, or can we leave Rule 1 as it is, with assurance that LB 932 fully overrides any conflicting information between the two laws?" Review of the regulation reflects that its provisions are inconsistent with underlying statutory requirements. Section
Sincerely,
DON STENBERG Attorney General
Fredrick F. Neid Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED BY:
____________________________________DON STENBERG Attorney General
Lyle Stoneman v. United Nebraska Bank ( 1998 )
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. McDermott & Miller ( 1993 )
steven-m-rayman-springfield-properties-holding-inc ( 1996 )
Robotham Ex Rel. Robotham v. State ( 1992 )
Firstier Bank, N.A. v. Department of Revenue ( 1998 )
County Cork, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission ( 1996 )