Opinion ID: 402182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insane; or,

Text: 16 3. Imprisoned on a criminal charge ... the time of such disability is not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action, provided however, that the time limited for the commencement of an action shall not be tolled for a period of more than six (6) years on account of minority, incompetency, ... (Emphasis added) 17 This act shall apply retroactively as respects all claims heretofore accrued and also to acts, errors or omissions heretofore or hereafter occurring. Compiler's notes, Section 2 of S.L.1976, ch. 276. (Emphasis added) 18 This act shall be in full force and effect on and after September 1, 1976. Compiler's notes, Section 3 of S.L.1976, ch. 276. (Emphasis added) 19 Brackney argues that despite the clear language of retroactivity, the Idaho legislature actually intended that subsequent to September 1, 1976, no action would be tolled for more than six years. In the alternative, he argues that giving this statute retroactive effect would be unconstitutional. 20 The district court ruled on the first contention: 21 Plaintiff's arguments are based upon ideas of fairness and general policy consideration. Such policy making is within the province of the legislature and not the courts. This Court must defer to the judgment of the legislature. 22 The clear wording of the statute exhibits a legislative intent to allow tolling for minority but to limit it to no more than six years. The limit was expressly stated to apply 'retroactively.' The only logical interpretation that that language can have is that this one rule was to be applied to past cases as well as future cases. 23 It appears to the court that defendants' position is well taken and that the unmistakable legislative intent must be given effect. It is more likely than not that I.C. § 5-230 was enacted with the intent to retroactively destroy any stale cause of action which had been lying idle for more than six years.... Michael Brackney had more than fifteen years to file suit under the old minority tolling statute and he had five extra months to file suit after the law was changed and before the new law became effective and extinguished his claim. Brackney sat on his remedy too long and now is barred from suing. 24 An appellate court will uphold the determination of a district judge as to the law of the state in which the district court is located unless such determination is clearly wrong. Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin, 643 F.2d 1376, 1380 (CA9 1981). We find that this determination of the district court is not clearly wrong and must be affirmed. 25 As to Brackney's due process claim, a facts and circumstances test on this issue was established by the Supreme Court in 1890. In Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U.S. 245, 11 S.Ct. 76, 34 L.Ed.2d 659 (1890), the Court stated: 26 It is the settled doctrine of this court that the (state) legislature may prescribe a limitation for the bringing of suits where none previously existed, as well as shorten the time within which suits to enforce existing causes of action may be commenced, provided, in each case, a reasonable time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, be given by the new law for the commencement of suit before the bar takes effect. (Emphasis added) 137 U.S. at 255, 11 S.Ct. at 78. 27 We find that, considering all of the circumstances in this case, the five month period between the enactment of the amendment of Idaho Code 5-230 and that statute's effective date provided a reasonable time for the commencement of suit before the bar takes effect. Brackney's due process argument is without merit. 28 In addition, Brackney argues that the statute of limitations remained tolled due to his coexisting disabilities. Brackney alleges that in addition to his minority, he is incompetent and emotionally disturbed. Idaho Code 5-236 reads: 29 Coexisting disabilities.-When two (2) or more disabilities coexist at the time the right of action accrues the limitation does not attach until they are removed. 30 The district court held that this statute had to be read in conjunction with Idaho Code 5-230, which specifically limited the tolling period for both minority and incompetency to six years. The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted the rule that when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts to harmonize and reconcile them so as not to deprive either of potency and force. Sampson v. Layton, 86 Idaho 453, 387 P.2d 883, 885 (1963). We hold that the district court harmonized these two statutes in a manner that cannot be said to be clearly wrong. 31 As to the claims of Michael Brackney, we hold that Idaho Code 5-230 tolled the statute of limitations for a period of six years. Accordingly, his claims, like those of the other appellants, are barred by the Idaho Statute of Limitations.