Opinion ID: 2643774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Which may be determinative

Text: The issues of state law will be determinative in this case. The banks have raised two state claims as well as a claim under the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of whether the Ordinances violate the Contracts Clause as applied to pre-Ordinance contracts, only a decision based on state law or the Massachusetts Constitution will give the banks the full measure of present arguments and to propose questions to certify. Neither party objected to certification as to the preemption question. However, both parties objected to certification of the illegal tax question, arguing that Massachusetts law is sufficiently clear that judgment should be entered in their favor. We disagree with the notion that this issue is clear. The SJC has previously answered questions certified even over the objections of both parties. See Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp., 640 N.E.2d 1101, 1102 (Mass. 1994) (answering certified question); Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp., 15 F.3d 1222, 1224 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting objections to certification). In any event, the SJC may not need to address the illegal tax claim if the Foreclosure Ordinance is preempted by state law. The banks also opposed certification of the Contracts Clause issue. Because that issue is one of federal law, we do not certify it. -8- relief they seek. As the Ordinances are applied prospectively, the only outcome-determinative issues are those of state law.5 This satisfies the SJC's requirement that the state law issues may be determinative of the case. Mass. S.J.C. R. 1:03. As a result, we need not now reach the banks' Contracts Clause argument because the state law issues, which will be determinative with respect to mortgages created after the enactment date of the Ordinances, will also be determinative as to those existing before the enactment date.