98 Mass. App. Ct. 84
Mass. App. Ct.2020Background
- Ryan Dellorusso defaulted on a motor-vehicle installment loan; PNC Bank repossessed the vehicle and sent a presale notice stating the debt would be reduced by "[t]he money that we get from the sale."
- Under Massachusetts law the UCC (G. L. c. 106) requires a notice describing any deficiency and contains a safe-harbor form phrase; the RISA (G. L. c. 255B) requires deficiency calculation be based on the car's fair market value and displaces inconsistent UCC provisions.
- The SJC, in Williams v. American Honda Fin. Corp., held that RISA's fair-market-value rule controls and that UCC safe-harbor language is displaced for automobile repossessions.
- Dellorusso sued after receiving PNC’s notice; the Superior Court dismissed, ruling Williams should be applied prospectively only.
- The Appeals Court (Blake, J.) reviewed whether Williams should be given retroactive effect and whether Dellorusso’s claim was therefore viable; it concluded Williams applies retroactively and vacated the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams should apply retroactively | Williams construed RISA/UCC statutes, so presumptively retroactive; no extraordinary circumstances to limit retroactivity | Williams should be prospective only (relying on Eaton) to avoid eviscerating the UCC safe-harbor and to prevent unfair hardship | Williams construed existing statutory text and is not a novel rule; apply retroactively to all cases without final judgment; no undue hardship shown |
| Whether the PNC presale notice was legally sufficient | The notice using UCC safe-harbor language was insufficient under Williams because RISA requires deficiency be based on fair market value | PNC contends adequacy should be judged prospectively; otherwise it relied on the UCC safe harbor | Under Williams the notice was legally insufficient; retroactive application allows plaintiff’s claim to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. American Honda Fin. Corp., 479 Mass. 656 (SJC 2018) (held RISA’s fair-market-value rule displaces UCC safe-harbor language for auto repossession deficiency notices)
- Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mtge. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569 (SJC 2012) (outlined limited circumstances to make judicial rulings prospective)
- American Int’l Ins. Co. v. Robert Seuffer GMBH & Co., 468 Mass. 109 (SJC 2014) (framework for retroactivity analysis; consider novelty, purpose, and hardship)
- McIntire, petitioner, 458 Mass. 257 (SJC 2010) (statutory constructions are ordinarily retroactive)
- Shawmut Worcester County Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 398 Mass. 273 (SJC 1986) (statutory construction holds retroactive effect rather than announcing new common-law rules)
- Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733 (SJC 2008) (addressed retroactivity and consumer-protection purposes in loan cases)
- Dever v. Ward, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 175 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017) (retroactive application acceptable where rule was foreshadowed)