Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)

Citation: Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)
Parent Document: Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2011-09-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6580334/federal-national-mortgage-assn-v-nunez/ ↗

Full Text

1,534 chars

Central to the inquiry whether the application of a statute operates retroactively is the concern for “fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations” that underlies the presumption against retroactive legislation. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., supra at 270. See id. at 265-267. A conclusion about retroactivity thus “comes at the end of a process of judgment concerning the nature and extent of the change in the law and the degree of connection between the operation of the new rule and a relevant past event.” Id. at 270. See Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 325 (2001) (repeal of provision providing relief from deportation had “obvious and severe retroactive effect” as applied to aliens who agreed to guilty pleas that would have preserved their eligibility for such relief, because of strong likelihood that aliens who waived right to jury trial were acting to retain eligibility for immigration relief). Here, where the Legislature has limited the power of certain property owners to remove tenants without cause, we decide whether applying the statute to properties purchased before the statute’s enactment would be so unfair, considering “fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations,” that we should conclude, in the absence of unequivocal statutory language, the Legislature would not have intended such unfairness. Because c. 186A is *523limited to “foreclosing owners,” we conclude that there is no such unfairness here, and that c. 186A is not retroactive in effect.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text