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

1,472 chars

Fannie Mae contends that, if the act is interpreted to apply to Nunez’s tenancy, it could never evict Nunez, even if it had just cause, because it must provide tenants with the notice required in G. L. c. 186A, § 3, within thirty days of the foreclosure, and may not evict for just cause unless “the notice required by section 3 is posted and delivered.” G. L. c. 186A, § 4 (a), (b). According to Fannie Mae, where, as here, the foreclosure occurred before the enactment of the act and therefore the notice required by the act was not posted and delivered within thirty days of the foreclosure, it could never satisfy this prerequisite for eviction and therefore could never lawfully evict under the act. Nothing in the language of the act requires so illogical a result. See DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 454 Mass. 486, 490-491 (2009) (“our respect for the Legislature’s considered judgment dictates that we interpret the statute to be sensible, rejecting unreasonable interpretations unless the clear meaning of the language requires such an interpretation”). For an eviction to satisfy the requirements of § 4, the act merely requires the foreclosing owner to have posted and delivered the notice prescribed in G. L. c. 186A, § 3, before serving a notice to quit; the requirement that the posting and delivery take place within thirty days of the foreclosure, where applicable, is separate and distinct from the requirements of a lawful foreclosure under the act.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text