Court Opinion

ID: 9626274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:07:04.360384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:24.830437
License: Public Domain

MEYERSON, Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree with the disposition reached by the majority. I disagree with the analytical approach taken by the majority with respect to the applicability of the Consumer Fraud Act.
*622The majority concludes that the Mortgage Brokers Act is not a comprehensive and detailed legislation designed to provide consumer protection and therefore does not preempt the Consumer Fraud Act. The majority relies upon the decision in Green Acres Trust to substantiate its analysis. Because I believe the amendment to the Consumer Fraud Act immediately after the Green Acres Trust decision legislatively overruled Green Acres Trust, I believe it is incorrect to revive the analysis contained in that decision.
The difficulty then becomes applying the supreme court’s decision in State ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell. The supreme court held that the amendment to the Consumer Fraud Act providing that its provisions “are in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties available to this state,” should be given only prospective effect. The supreme court relied upon the general rule that a statute will be given prospective operation only absent a plain indication of legislative intent that it operate retrospectively. 136 Ariz. at 593-94, 667 P.2d at 1308-09. I respectfully disagree with the application of this principle to the Consumer Fraud Act amendment because in my opinion, it is clear that the legislature intended the amendment to apply retroactively.
The supreme court correctly recognized that the legislative action stripped the holding in Green Acres Trust of its “foundation.” 136 Ariz. at 592, 667 P.2d at 1307. Thus, the amendment was “curative” in nature in that it was designed to remedy the effect of the Green Acres Trust decision. If the legislative action is viewed in this light, it is apparent that the intent of the legislature was to restore to the Consumer Fraud Act its broad remedial purpose and to “repeal” the limiting effect of Green Acres Trust. Curative legislation of this nature is generally given a retroactive effect. See generally 2 C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 41.01-22 (4th ed. 1973).
In my opinion, the legislature decreed that Green Acres Trust was incorrect. Therefore, at the time of the acts in question herein, the Consumer Fraud Act constituted a supplemental remedy which the state could legitimately utilize. Because the retroactivity of the Consumer Fraud Act amendment may be important in other pending cases, I urge the supreme court to reconsider its decision in State ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell.