Opinion ID: 2550843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did The Family Court Err In Applying SB 84 Retroactively?

Text: Smith's final claim arises from the Family Court's denial of her two motions in limine. She argues that in determining whether Guest was a de facto parent, the Family Court erroneously applied SB 84 by considering evidence of events that occurred before the bill's enactment date (July 6, 2009). Smith cites Pullman, Inc. v. Phoenix Steel Corp. [93] as support for her argument that when applying a statute, a court may consider only events occurring after that statute's enactment date. We normally review a trial court's decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. [94] Smith's claim, however, requires us to interpret a statute. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo to determine whether a trial court erred as a matter of law in formulating and applying legal precepts. [95] Under Delaware law, there must be clear legislative intent for a law to be applied retroactively. [96] Smith's reliance on Pullman is misplaced. In Pullman, the Superior Court concluded that the new statute did not permit consideration of evidence occurring before the statute's enactment date, because [b]y its express terms, the new law is not retroactive.... [97] The court then concluded that it was the intent of the legislature to allow all contracts entered into prior to the effective date of the new law to remain unaffected by the [statutory] change.... [98] This case differs materially from Pullman. Here, the General Assembly clearly intended for SB 84 to apply to past events. Section 5 of SB 84 expressly provides that SB 84 shall have retroactive effect. [99] And, apart from Section 5, the codified statutory language itself also supports this conclusionnewly enacted Section 8-201(c) requires a court to look back in time to determine whether a de facto parent-child relationship has been established. [100] That codified language evinces a statutory intent for the court to consider pre-enactment events. On that basis, the Family Court properly considered events that occurred before SB 84's July 6, 2009 enactment date in determining whether Guest is a de facto parent of ANS.