Sentry Federal Sav. Bank v. Co-Operative Cent. Bank, CO-OPERATIVE

Decision Date09 January 1990
Docket NumberCO-OPERATIVE
Citation548 N.E.2d 854,406 Mass. 412
PartiesSENTRY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK et al. 1 v. TheCENTRAL BANK.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Brian T. Kenner & Gregory A. Bibler, for plaintiffs.

Robert C. Barber (William F. Looney, Jr., with him) for defendant.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

NOLAN, Justice.

This case implicates substantially the same issue presented in Andover Sav. Bank v. Co-operative Cent. Bank, 406 Mass. 409, 548 N.E.2d 852 (1990), decided today, i.e., claims on the share insurance fund (fund). There is one significant difference which we shall discuss without repeating the procedural and historical background which is the same as the Andover Sav. Bank case.

Unlike the conversion to a Massachusetts chartered savings bank in Andover Sav. Bank, supra, here the plaintiffs converted to Federal savings banks which are successors to co-operative banks. As a result, the question implicates a different statute. The statute here is G.L. c. 170, § 28, which governs the conversion of a co-operative bank to a Federal savings bank. The precise problem is the effect of an amendment to this statute in 1985 (St.1985, c. 405, § 5), the relevant language of which is set forth in the margin. 2 The predecessor Sentry Co-operative Bank withdrew from the defendant in 1983 when it converted, and in 1984 the predecessor Lafayette Co-operative Bank also converted to a Federal charter. They argue that the 1985 amendment noted above should apply retroactively to them. We do not agree.

If the plaintiffs had converted to a Federal charter after the 1985 amendment was in effect, they would have been entitled to a distribution but "the aggregate amount of such distributions shall be limited to an amount equal to the amount the corporation would have received had the [fund] been liquidated at the time such corporation accepted its federal charter." G.L. c. 170, § 28, as amended through St.1985, c. 405, § 5. Unless the legislative intent is unequivocally clear to the contrary, a statute operates prospectively, not retroactively. Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 387 Mass. 531, 542, 441 N.E.2d 746 (1982). The plaintiffs received from the defendant all that § 28 provided them, as it was written when they converted. They can demand no more.

Furthermore, the predecessors to the plaintiffs executed termination agreements with the defendant at the time at which each cooperative bank converted from a cooperative bank to a Federal savings and loan association. These agreements were designed for the "complete and final termination of the obligations, membership, rights and/or interest" of the plaintiffs' predecessor cooperative banks in the defendant. The agreements, after acknowledging the cessation of insurance coverage by the fund on the effective date of the conversions, provide for the payment of the banks' entire interest in the fund. The plaintiffs' argument that a statutory amendment which is effective approximately two years later increases this interest is simply not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Smith v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 31, 2012
    ...contrary legislative intent. See Fleet Nat'l Bank, supra at 449, 862 N.E.2d 22, quoting Sentry Fed. Sav. Bank v. Co-Operative Cent. Bank, 406 Mass. 412, 414, 548 N.E.2d 854 (1990). As we explain below, the MBTA's “new” status as a public employer results in a comparative diminution of the s......
  • Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 042840A
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Massachusetts
    • February 7, 2007
    ...... certain claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette. Labeling and Advertisement Act. . ... Danca v. Taunton Savs. Bank, 385 Mass. 1, 8 (1982), quoting. Barrett Assocs. ... retroactively." Sentry Fed. Sav. Bank v. Co-Operative. Central Bank, ......
  • Verizon New England Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Boston , 09–P–2342.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • March 19, 2012
    ...City Council of Waltham v. Vinciullo, 364 Mass. 624, 626, 307 N.E.2d 316 (1974); Sentry Fed. Sav. Bank v. Co-Operative Cent. Bank, 406 Mass. 412, 414, 548 N.E.2d 854 (1990). No unequivocal language appears. On the contrary, the amending statute expressly stated that the amendment was only t......
  • Fleet Nat. Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 2, 2007
    ...of action." Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co., 220 Mass. 1, 3, 107 N.E. 426 (1914). See Sentry Fed. Sav. Bank v. Co-operative Cent. Bank, 406 Mass. 412, 414, 548 N.E.2d 854 (1990) ("Unless the legislative intent is unequivocally clear to the contrary, a statute operates prospectivel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT