Opinion ID: 2633584
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The presumption against retrospective legislation

Text: Alaska Statute 01.10.090 provides that [n]o statute is retrospective unless expressly declared therein. This statute creates a presumption against retrospective legislation, [22] and we have noted that [s]tatutes are not to be applied retroactively unless the language used by the legislature indicates the contrary. [23] The CBNA maintains that this principle prevents retroactive application of AS 09.10.065. It asserts that the legislature intended for the 2001 amendment to take effect on October 1, 2001, and that the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because they lapsed well before that date. The plaintiffs respond that the broad language of the 2001 and 2003 amendments demonstrates that the legislature intended to revive lapsed claims. First, they argue that language introduced in the 2001 amendment (which continues through to the current AS 09.10.065) suggests that the legislature intended for this provision to revive lapsed claims. Specifically, they note that while the former provision referred to perpetrators and set a three-year statute of limitations, the new language allows individuals to bring an action at any time for the following acts, and then lists various criminal offenses. They maintain that this distinction reflects a legislative choice to significantly broaden the reach of this statute to revive lapsed claims. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that it is significant that the 2001 amendment explicitly indicated that it did not revive certain time-barred criminal claims: Sec. 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: APPLICABILITY. The extension of the statute of limitations for felony sexual assault provided in sec. 2 of this Act [which waives the statute of limitations for specified criminal actions] applies (1) to all offenses occurring on or after the effective date of this Act; and (2) to all offenses occurring before the effective date of this Act if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense on the day before the effective date of this Act has not expired, including any specific time periods for that offense under AS 12.10.020, as that section read the day before the effective date of this Act, and any period when the limitations period did not run under AS 12.10.040. [24] The plaintiffs argue that the lack of comparable language regarding the lifting of the statute of limitations for civil claims suggests that the legislature intended for AS 09.10.065 to apply retroactively.