Opinion ID: 2622179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: appropriate deference to the legislature

Text: ¶37 We note that other courts have adhered to the plain language of their respective tolling statutes, despite a likely conflict with the states' long-arm statutes. The California Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court are two examples. [45] Both courts refused to hold that the tolling statutes of those states were inoperative even when a departed defendant was still amenable to service of process within the state. [46] These courts recognized that it was the legislature's prerogative to establish statutes of limitations and to provide for instances in which their running should be tolled. [47] ¶38 We agree that applying the tolling statute's plain language shows the appropriate deference to the Legislature in this case. As Justice Howe noted in his concurring opinion in Lund, Our tolling statute . . . does not differ materially from its original enactment in Laws of Utah (1872). [48] He stated that with the expansion of means by which jurisdiction can be obtained over a defendant who has left the state, there may not be the same need for our tolling statute as previously existed. [49] But Justice Howe noted his agreement with other courts that observed, [W]hile there may be valid arguments that tolling statutes are unnecessary when a defendant is amenable to service of process, those arguments must be addressed to the legislature, not to the courts. [50] Additionally, Justice Howe quoted the California Supreme Court: `If the Legislature intends that the tolling provision not extend the limitations period whenever the defendant is amenable to jurisdiction, it can easily so state.' [51] ¶39 The Utah Legislature is aware of the tolling statute at issue. Although the Legislature has made minor changes to the text of the original version of the statute, it left its substance unaltered. We presume the Legislature is aware of our case law, which has consistently held that only when the Nonresident Motor Vehicle Act applies will the tolling statute not toll the applicable statute of limitations. If the Legislature wants to change the tolling statute's general application, it is always free to do so. [52] But at this point, the Legislature has accepted our plain-language interpretation of the tolling statute for almost ninety years.