From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SPA Flying Service, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jan 5, 1984
724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984)

Summary

holding that the RFPA does not apply to accounts held by corporations

Summary of this case from United States v. Satary

Opinion

No. 83-2106.

Submitted December 30, 1983.

Decided January 5, 1984.

Paul R. Bosson, Hot Springs, Ark., for appellants.

W. Asa Hutchinson, U.S. Atty., Larry R. McCord, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and John R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.


Spa Flying Service, Inc. ("Spa") appeals from dismissal with prejudice of its complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Federal Aviation Administration had subpoenaed Spa's financial records from its bank. Suing under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., Spa claimed protection from such governmental intrusion. The district court found, however, that the Act does not protect corporations. The single issue stated on appeal is whether the Act applies to corporations. We affirm.

The Act requires that before financial institutions disclose their customers' records to the government, a proper administrative subpoena must reasonably describe the records and the customer must authorize disclosure. 12 U.S.C. § 3402. Legislative history of the Act suggests that this provision mediates between society's interest in law enforcement and customers' interest in privacy. 1978 U.S. Code, Cong. Ad. News, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 9305.

The Act's definitions preclude protection of corporate financial records. The "Customer" who must authorize disclosure is "any person or authorized representative of that person who utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution * * *." 12 U.S.C. § 3401(5). "Person" means "an individual or partnership of 5 or fewer individuals." 12 U.S.C. § 3401(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the Act unambiguously limits its protection to customers and small partnerships. In response, Spa observes that the presumption governing definitions in the United States Code provides that "person" includes corporations unless the context of the Act requires otherwise. 1 U.S.C. § 1. In this case, however, the negative inference arising from the Act's definitions is unmistakable: corporations are excluded because they are not specifically enumerated.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

SPA Flying Service, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jan 5, 1984
724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984)

holding that the RFPA does not apply to accounts held by corporations

Summary of this case from United States v. Satary
Case details for

SPA Flying Service, Inc. v. United States

Case Details

Full title:SPA FLYING SERVICE, INC. AND JESS P. KIMBALL, APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jan 5, 1984

Citations

724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Whitty

The Government is correct in arguing that the RFPA applies only to individuals or partnerships of less than…

U.S. v. Daccarett

Thus, the act is limited to individual customers and small partnerships; corporations are not protected. See,…