Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez
460 Mass. 511
| Mass. | 2011Background
- August 7, 2010 act St. 2010, c. 258, immediate effect, prohibits eviction without just cause for foreclosed residential properties.
- Fannie Mae owned the Hampden Street property after foreclosure (Nov. 30, 2009) and served a 90-day quit notice (Jan. 11, 2010) without just cause.
- Fannie Mae filed a summary process to recover possession on May 10, 2010; Nunez answered with defenses and counterclaims.
- Nunez remained in the home when the act took effect; the Housing Court dismissed the no-cause eviction claim and stayed other claims.
- The issue presented: whether c. 186A applies retroactively to a pending pre-enactment case and how to interpret eviction definitions and foreclosing owner status.
- Court concludes c. 186A operates prospectively to acts after August 7, 2010 and may apply to pending actions if the eviction would occur after the effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does c. 186A apply retroactively to pending cases? | Fannie Mae argues retroactive effect because eviction was begun before Aug. 7, 2010. | Nunez contends statute should apply to acts after effective date only. | Statute applies prospectively; pending case dismissed for post‑enactment eviction. |
| What is the meaning of eviction under c. 186A? | Eviction defined as a legal action (filing of summary process). | Eviction includes any act or conduct intended to cause eviction, not limited to legal actions. | Eviction includes acts beyond legal actions; statute covers constructively as well as actually evicting. |
| Is there retroactive impact on property rights acquired pre-enactment? | Applying to pre-enactment foreclosures infringes property rights. | Limited to foreclosing owners and not unfairly burdens property owners; not retroactive. | Not retroactive; applied to foreclosing owners post-enactment without undue burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (retroactivity framework; fairness and expectations govern application)
- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (retroactivity as a governing presumption unless clear legislative language)
- Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (notice and opportunity to respond relevant to retroactivity analysis)
- Strycharski v. Spillane, 320 Mass. 382 (Mass. 1946) (landlord must adhere to notice grounds in eviction process)
- Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, 448 Mass. 441 (Mass. 2007) (retroactivity considerations in tax/fee rulings; statutory application context)