Opinion ID: 1911139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retroactivity of Section 614.8A

Text: A. Linda alleges the last incident of sexual abuse occurred in approximately 1967. At the time of this last incident, the two year period of limitations located in Iowa Code section 614.1(3) (1966) would have governed Linda's ability to bring a tort action for personal injury. However, because Linda was a minor in 1967, section 614.8 would have tolled the running of the period of limitations so that it would have expired one year after she attained the age of majority under normal conditions. Iowa Code § 614.8 (1966). Pursuant to the 1966 code, individuals attained majority at age twenty-one or upon marriage. Iowa Code § 599.1 (1966). Linda was married on August 19, 1972. However, in 1972, the Iowa legislature reduced the age of majority to nineteen, effective on July 1, 1972. On that date Linda was twenty years old having been born on April 19, 1952. By legislative act, she attained her majority on July 1, 1972, before she was married. Therefore, absent the potential application of any other tolling rules, the period of limitations would have expired on July 1, 1973one year after Linda attained her age of majority. In 1990, the legislature added section 614.8A, entitled Damages for child sexual abusetime limitation, to the Iowa Code. 1990 Iowa Acts ch. 1241, § 2. This section provides the following: An action for damages for injury suffered as a result of sexual abuse which occurred when the injured person was a child, but not discovered until after the injured person is of the age of majority, shall be brought within four years from the time of discovery by the injured party of both the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the sexual abuse. Iowa Code § 614.8A (1991). The legislature did not specify the effective date of this section. Under Iowa Code section 3.7(1), this statute therefore took effect on the first day of July following its passage or July 1, 1990. Linda filed this action on September 5, 1991. The defendants argue that application of section 614.8A to the circumstances of this case would amount to an improper retroactive application of the statute. They assert that since Linda's suit would have been barred under the statute of limitations which existed at the time of the events giving rise to her cause of action, the new statute cannot revive her potential claim. The defendants also contend that the legislature only intended the section to apply to causes of action which have arisen since July 1, 1990. The plaintiffs counter the defendants' assertions by contending that under Iowa law, procedural statutes apply retroactively unless the legislature expressly indicates a contrary intent. The plaintiffs argue that because section 614.8A is a procedural statute and does not impair any substantive rights of the defendants, it applies retroactively. B. Our legislature has provided a statutory general rule that determines the applicability of its laws. Iowa Code section 4.5 (1993) provides, A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective. The preference of the legislature for prospectivity is further stated in Iowa Code section 3.7(6) (1993): Unless retroactive effectiveness is specifically provided for in an Act or resolution, an Act or resolution which is enacted after an effective date provided in the Act or resolution shall take effect upon the date of enactment. A law is retroactive if it affects acts or facts which occurred, or rights which accrued, before the law came into force. Black's Law Dictionary 1184 (5th ed. 1979); see also Smith v. Korf, 302 N.W.2d 137, 138 (Iowa 1981); Walker State Bank v. Chipokas, 228 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Iowa 1975). We presume that all statutes the legislature enacts are to apply prospectively; that is, they are to apply only to actions which arise after the effective date of the statute, unless the legislature expressly indicates they are to apply retroactively. First Nat'l Bank v. Diers, 430 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1988); City of Waverly v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 383 N.W.2d 513, 514 (Iowa 1986); Bascom v. District Court, 231 Iowa 360, 362, 1 N.W.2d 220, 221 (1941); see also Mason v. State, 309 Md. 215, 522 A.2d 1344, 1345 (1987); State Farm v. Hearn, 242 Md. 575, 219 A.2d 820, 824 (1966); Thompson v. Merritt, 192 Mich.App. 412, 481 N.W.2d 735, 738 (1991); State v. Dimmler, 456 N.W.2d 297, 298 (N.D.1990). In applying the statutory directive of section 4.5 to determine whether a statute shall apply solely prospectively or retrospectively, we also look to the intent of the legislature. Diers, 430 N.W.2d at 414; City of Waverly, 383 N.W.2d at 514; Walker State Bank, 228 N.W.2d at 51; see also Mason, 522 A.2d at 1345. C. We have had occasion through the years to consider whether a statute has retrospective effect. In Secrest v. Galloway Co., 239 Iowa 168, 172, 30 N.W.2d 793, 796 (1948), a statute limiting the time for review of a worker's compensation award was deemed a statute of limitations and was held not to be retroactive. We said, The rule, apparently, of almost universal application, is, however, that a statute of limitations will be given retroactive effect only when it appears by express provision or necessary implication that such was the legislative intent. Id. Schulte v. Wageman , relied on by plaintiffs, does not involve a question of retroactivity as in the present case. Schulte v. Wageman, 465 N.W.2d 285, 287 (Iowa 1991). In Schulte, the statute relied on as a bar was held to be unconstitutional and was subsequently repealed by the Iowa legislature. Id. We then held that a paternity suit was not barred under these circumstances. Id. at 287-88. In Doe v. Cherwitz, 518 N.W.2d 362, 363 (Iowa 1994), we were asked by the federal court to determine the retroactivity question herein considered in interpreting section 614.8A. We did not reach this question, however, because we answered a preliminary question, holding that section 614.8A did not apply to the plaintiff who was not a child at the time of the alleged act of sexual abuse. Id. at 363-64. Plaintiffs seek support for their argument for applying the statute retroactively from cases that have made a distinction between statutes affecting substantive rights and those dealing with procedure. They argue that section 614.8A relates to procedure or remedy rather than right or substance. See State ex rel. Turner v. Limbrecht, 246 N.W.2d 330, 332 (Iowa 1976), overruled on other grounds, City of Waverly v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 383 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 1986). As such, it would be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively. See also Bascom, 231 Iowa at 364, 1 N.W.2d at 222; Walker State Bank, 228 N.W.2d at 51. We have found this distinction helpful in determining legislative intent from an analysis of the effect of the statute. At the same time we have carried out the legislative mandate of Iowa Code section 4.5 regarding prospectivity. In First National Bank v. Diers, 430 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1988), we found the plain language of a statute, involving the redemption from the sale of a homestead, required that the statute be applied prospectively only. We also reasoned that a retroactive application of the statute would not have been intended by the legislature because the result would have been that no one could have complied with the redemption time requirements that had previously expired. Thus, the result of a retroactive interpretation would have been to authorize a useless act. We also noted that a legislative attempt to make the redemption law of Iowa Code section 654.16 retroactive was struck down as an unconstitutional interference with private contractual relations. See Federal Land Bank v. Arnold, 426 N.W.2d 153, 161 (Iowa 1988). In Diers we found intent to apply the statute prospectively from the language this act applies to actions filed on or after the effective date of this act. Diers, 430 N.W.2d at 414. From this language we concluded that the plain language of the statute requires that section 654.16 be applied prospectively. Id. When the legislature passed Iowa Code section 614.8A it stated in section 3, This Act is applicable to all actions filed on or after the effective date of the Act. 1990 Iowa Acts ch. 1241, § 3. Excepting the addition of the word all, this language is a verbatim recital of the statutory language we considered in Diers. Consistent with the plain language of the statute and the prospective interpretation of Diers, plaintiffs' filing of their action after July 1, 1990, would facially appear to meet the statutory time requirements of Iowa Code section 614.8A; however, the decision we made in Diers rejected a retrospective interpretation that would have altered the law that fixed substantive rights of the parties. It also did not present any issue of claims already barred by a statute of limitations. In other cases we have refused to revive previously barred claims. In Thompson v. Read, 41 Iowa 48, 48 (1875), the plaintiff, an Iowa resident, sought to recover payment on certain notes from the defendant who was a resident of Minnesota at the time of the transaction. The applicable Iowa statute of limitations provided that when another state's statute of limitations already barred an action, the bar would operate as a defense in Iowa just as it would have in the other state. Id. at 49. The Minnesota statute of limitations had expired six years previous to the institution of the action. The transaction at issue took place in Iowa. The legislature amended the Iowa statute of limitations, apparently after the Minnesota statute of limitations had already expired, to provide that the Iowa provision would not apply to causes of action which arose in Iowa. The plaintiff argued that the amended provision revived the expired cause of action. Id. The court looked to the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute and held that the legislature intended to preserve the rights and conditions of defendants in actions as they had been recognized and settled by the laws of the states where they had previously resided; a result, certainly, in accord with the principles of comity prevailing among the states of the union. Id. at 49-50. We held that an amendment of a statute of limitations could not apply retrospectively to disturb rights acquired under the prior enactment. Id. at 50. In contrast, where the statute provided that it was intended to apply to causes of action which have already accrued and are not yet barred, our court held the statute was retrospective. Montgomery v. Chadwick, 7 Iowa 114, 132-33 (1858). In re Estate of Weidman, 476 N.W.2d 357, 364 (Iowa 1991), cert. denied, Weidman v. Stahlhut, 503 U.S. 975, 112 S.Ct. 1596, 118 L.Ed.2d 311 (1992), involved a will contest. The issue before the court was whether an amended statute of limitations would effectively revive a will contestant's action which had previously been barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 359. We said A general rule with respect to statutes of limitations is that the period of limitation in effect at the time suit is brought governs in an action even though it may lengthen or shorten an earlier period of limitation.... However, another general rule ... is that if plaintiff's suit was barred by the running of a statute of limitations prior to the extension of the limitation period, the subsequent statute cannot revive defendant's liability. Id. at 363-64 (quoting In re M.D.H., 437 N.E.2d 119, 130 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). We further stated This general rule has been followed and further explained by this court and federal courts applying Iowa law. Previously, we have held that the statute of limitations in effect at the time the cause of action accrues is controlling and that the repeal or amendment of a statute of limitations cannot act retrospectively to revive actions previously barred under a prior statute in the absence of express legislative intent. Id. at 364 (citing Secrest v. Galloway Co., 239 Iowa at 172, 30 N.W.2d at 796; Tischer v. City of Council Bluffs, 231 Iowa 1134, 1149, 3 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Iowa 1942); McDonald v. Jackson, 55 Iowa 37, 38-39, 7 N.W. 408, 409 (1880); Thompson v. Read, 41 Iowa at 50; Montgomery v. Chadwick, 7 Iowa at 132-33). We continued to say, Federal courts applying Iowa law have not allowed retroactive application of an amended statute of limitations. Id. (citing In re Alodex Corp. Sec. Litig., 392 F.Supp. 672, 680-81 (S.D.Iowa 1975), aff'd, 533 F.2d 372 (8th Cir.1976); Keen v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 63 F.Supp. 120, 128 (N.D.Iowa 1945), aff'd, 157 F.2d 310 (8th Cir.1946)). Applying these general principles, we held the later statute could not be applied retroactively to revive claims already barred by the expiration of time under the prior statute of limitations. Consistent with our case law and these general principles, we hold section 614.8A does not apply retroactively to revive claims that have been barred by an applicable statute of limitations in existence prior to the enactment of section 614.8A. In determining whether a claim has been barred by an applicable statute of limitations, however, application of the discovery rule must be made as a necessary step in that resolution. In Claus v. Whyle, 526 N.W.2d 519 (Iowa 1994), we applied the discovery rule in interpreting section 614.8A. In that case the victim of sex abuse was thirteen at the time of the incident. Id. at 521. On September 20, 1989 she married. She discovered the 1987 abuse by remembering in a flashback which occurred in the latter part of 1990 or the first part of 1991 after she had become a legal adult through marriage. Id. Section 614.8A was effective on July 1, 1990 and therefore applied to the date of discovery of the sexual abuse. Id. at 525. Ruling that section 614.8A applied we stated as follows: As section 614.8A allows an adult to bring an action up until four years after discovery of sexual abuse, Beverly Jo is well within the statute of limitations of section 614.8A relative to the November 7, 1987 incident. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court properly allowed Beverly Jo to bring an action against her father for the November 7, 1987 abuse and correctly rejected defendants' argument that the proper statutes of limitations for this incident were Iowa Code sections 614.1(2) and 614.8. Id. The discovery by the injured party in Claus in late 1990 or 1991 of the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the sexual abuse, occurred after the effective date of the statute, section 614.8A, which was July 1, 1990. Our common law discovery rule thus applies to claims filed prior to the enactment of section 614.8A, and the statutory discovery rule of section 614.8A applies to actions filed thereafter. Claims barred by preexisting statutes of limitation are not revived by either discovery rule. Whether sufficient discovery by a victim has occurred to initiate the running of a statute of limitations is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Other states have reached the same conclusion that barred claims cannot be revived. For instance, in D.P. v. M.J.O., 266 Ill. App.3d 1029, 203 Ill.Dec. 950, 955, 640 N.E.2d 1323, 1328 (1994), the Illinois Court of Appeals explained We agree that had this section been time barred in 1990, the enactment of the amendatory act under § 13-202.2 would not have been effective to revive an otherwise time barred action. .... In Illinois, as in the majority of jurisdictions, the right to set up the bar of the statute of limitations, after the statute has run, as a defense to a cause of action, has been held to be a vested right which cannot be taken away by statute, regardless of the nature of the cause of action. .... Nor would the language of § 13-202.2(e) indicate a legislative intent to give retroactive application to the provisions of the amendatory act in face of the constitutional infirmaties which Illinois has recognized in attempting to revive a time barred action. Id.; accord Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., 635 So.2d 177 (La.1994); Hopkins v. Lincoln Trust Co., 233 N.Y. 213, 135 N.E. 267 (1922). Thus, our answer to certified question one is No.