Court Opinion

ID: 9519939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:28:03.82416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:21.875170
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree with the result reached by the court. I write separately, however, to address what I perceive to be an inconsistency in our case law concerning the analysis used to determine whether the amendment to section 12 — 112 applies to this case. The court states that the approach Illinois reviewing courts follow in deciding whether an amended statute applies on appeal to pending suits or preexisting causes of action is that set forth in First of America Trust Co. v. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d 282 (1996). 191 Ill. 2d at 108. Under Armstead, the reviewing court is to apply the law as it exists at the time of the appeal, unless doing so would interfere with a vested right. 191 Ill. 2d at 108, citing Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290. In Armstead, this court declared that the principles applicable for determining whether a statutory amendment applies to an existing controversy on appeal “have not been consistently stated.” Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 287-88. We noted that two different analyses had been developed in our case law — the “legislative intent approach” and the “vested rights approach.” Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 287-90. Under the former approach, whether an amendment applies retroactively turns upon the intent of the legislature. See, e.g., People v. Fiorini, 143 Ill. 2d 318, 333 (1991) (acknowledging general rule that amendment will be construed as prospective, absent express language to the contrary). Courts that employ the legislative intent analysis presume an application of prospectivity; however, the presumption is rebuttable by either the statute’s “express language or necessary implication.” Rivard v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, 122 Ill. 2d 303, 309 (1988). Moreover, the presumption does not apply if the amendment is procedural in nature as opposed to substantive. Rivard, 122 Ill. 2d at 310. See also Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 288-89 (collecting cases). In contrast, courts operating under the “vested rights” approach presume a retroactive application, based upon the general rule that a court should apply the law as it exists at the time of the appeal. See Bates v. Board of Education, Allendale Community Consolidated School District No. 17, 136 Ill. 2d 260, 268-69 (1990). The only exception to this rule exists in cases where the application of the change in the law would affect a vested right, that is, a right protected from legislative interference by the due process clause. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 289. After comparing the two analyses, this court in Arm-stead declared that “the better approach is to apply the law that applies by its terms at the time of the appeal, unless doing so would interfere with a vested right.” Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 289. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the application of an amendment to an existing controversy does not necessarily constitute “retroactivity.” The court defined a retroactive change in the law as “ ‘ “one that takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past.” ’ ” Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290, quoting United States Steel Credit Union v. Knight, 32 Ill. 2d 138, 142 (1965), quoting 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 412 (1953). Thus, where no vested rights are involved, because they have not been perfected or because the amendment is procedural in nature, the amended law can be applied to the existing controversy without any retroactive impact. Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290. Under this definition of retroactivity, the court reasoned that “there is little reason to focus on legislative intent.” Armstead, 171 Ill. 2d at 290. This court, having seemingly eschewed the legislative intent analysis for the vested rights approach in Arm-stead, nevertheless resurrected the legislative intent analysis just one year later in People v. Digirolamo, 179 Ill. 2d 24 (1997). In resolving whether a statutory amendment applied in the case, we stated the following: “Generally, an amendment to a statute will be construed to apply prospectively and not retroactively. See Rivard v. Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, 122 Ill. 2d 303, 309 (1988). This presumption can be rebutted by express statutory language or by necessary implication. See People v. Fiorini, 143 Ill. 2d 318, 333 (1991); Rivard, 122 Ill. 2d at 309. There is also an exception to this general rule of prospectivity that arises where the amendment affects only procedure. Where the legislature intends a retroactive application of the amendment and the statutory amendment relates to changes in procedures or remedies, and not substantive rights, it applies retroactively to pending cases. See Fiorini, 143 Ill. 2d at 333; Rivard, 122 Ill. 2d at 310; Matter v. Chicago Board of Education, 82 Ill. 2d 373, 390 (1980).” Digirolamo, 179 Ill. 2d at 50. Our opinion in Digirolamo does not mention Armstead nor does it speak of the vested rights approach in any way. Moreover, throughout our analysis, we referred specifically to the legislature’s intent in determining whether the amendment should apply retroactively. See Digirolamo, 179 Ill. 2d at 50. As the foregoing demonstrates, this court has not charted an entirely clear course with respect to the analysis to be used when the retroactivity of a statutory amendment arises. In light of this conflicting precedent, I believe that we should take advantage of the opportunity that this case presents in order to clarify our position on this issue and to provide guidance for our lower courts. Indeed, at least one panel of our appellate court has raised questions concerning the seeming inconsistency between Armstead and Digirolamo, as has one federal court of appeals judge. See White v. Sunrise Healthcare Corp., 295 Ill. App. 3d 296, 299 (1998) (noting that Digirolamo did not purport to overrule Armstead in any respect); Kopec v. City of Elmhurst, 193 F.3d 894, 906 (7th Cir. 1999) (Posner, C.J., dissenting) (observing dichotomy between Digirolamo and Armstead and characterizing Illinois law on the question of retroactivity as being “in the state of some muddle”). Put simply, this is a problem that will not go away until this court speaks to the issue definitively. Courts have traditionally been wary of statutory retroactivity and generally presume that statutes have prospective or forward application. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229, 252, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 1497 (1994). According to the Court, retroactive statutes “raise particular concerns” as demonstrated by the fact that antiretroactivity principles are expressed in several provisions of the United States Constitution. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 266, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 252-53, 114 S. Ct. at 1497. Nevertheless, the Constitution’s restrictions are of a limited scope and “[ajbsent a violation of one of those specific provisions, the potential unfairness of retroactive civil legislation is not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give a statute its intended scope.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 267, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 253-54, 114 S. Ct. at 1498. This is so because retroactive legislation can often serve “benign and legitimate purposes.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 267-68, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 254, 114 S. Ct. at 1498. Thus, the Court has long held that “[wjords in a statute ought not to have a retrospective operation, unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative, that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied.” United States v. Heth, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 399, 413, 2 L. Ed. 479, 483 (1806). See also Schwab v. Doyle, 258 U.S. 529, 534-35, 66 L. Ed. 747, 752, 42 S. Ct. 391, 392 (1922) (declaring, “[Ljaws are not to be considered as applying to cases which arose before their passage unless that intention be clearly declared. *** If the absence of such determining declaration leaves to the statute a double sense, it is the command of the cases, that that which rejects retroactive operation must be selected”). In light of these principles, the Court noted that “a requirement that Congress first make its intention clear helps ensure that Congress itself has determined that the benefits of retroactivity outweigh the potential for disruption or unfairness.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 268, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 254, 114 S. Ct. at 1498. If the legislative branch has made its intent clear, while acting within the limits of its power, then the inquiry concludes. But if the statute lacks an “unambiguous directive” from the legislative branch, the court then “must look elsewhere for guidance” on the retroactivity question. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229, 251, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 1496 (1994). See also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481, 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997). However, deciding “when a statute operates ‘retroactively’ is not always a simple or mechanical task” in the absence of express legislative directive. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 268, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 254, 114 S. Ct. at 1498. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has struggled with many of the same inconsistencies that have troubled this court. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 263-65, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 251-52, 114 S. Ct. at 1496-97 (noting the “apparent tension between the rules we have espoused [in retroactivity cases] in the absence of an instruction from Congress”). Of particular concern was the maxim, often seen in cases involving retroactivity, that a court should “ ‘apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision,’ [citation], even though that law was enacted after the events that gave rise to the suit.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 273, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 257, 114 S. Ct. at 1501. The Court pointed out, however, that there is no conflict between that principle and a presumption against retroactivity when the statute in question clearly indicates a legislative intent that it apply retroactively. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 273, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 257, 114 S. Ct. at 1501. Nevertheless, the Court spoke definitively in Landgraf concerning the inquiry to be used when determining the application of a statutory amendment to a pending case: “When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court’s first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 261-62, 114 S. Ct. at 1505. A statute does not act retroactively “merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment, [citation], or upsets expectations based in prior law. Rather, the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269-70, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 254-55, 114 S. Ct. at 1499. The Court explained that statutes which affect jurisdiction, injunctive relief or procedural rules normally do not fall into that definition. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 273-76, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 257-59, 114 S. Ct. at 1501-03. In my view, the test enunciated by the Court in Landgraf properly fixes the initial focus of the inquiry on the language of the statute. The temporal reach of a statute is, in essence, a question of statutory construction, and the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature. Paris v. Feder, 179 Ill. 2d 173, 177 (1997). The judiciary has long held that the best evidence of legislative intent is the “language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” Paris, 179 Ill. 2d at 177 (and cases cited therein). The presumption against statutory retroactivity discussed in Landgraf has no force in cases where the legislature’s intent is clear. The presumption is nothing more than a general rule for interpreting statutes that do not specify their temporal reach. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 251, 114 S. Ct. at 1496. Accordingly, I believe that this court should likewise begin any analysis of a statute’s retroactivity with the language contained in the statute at issue. If the statute affirmatively and explicitly requires its application to pending cases or preexisting causes of action, then the court cannot deny retroactivity. When the statute is silent, however, this court should determine whether applying the law in effect at the time of our decision would constitute a retroactive application, i.e., “whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 261-62, 114 S. Ct. at 1505. If not, the amended law may be applied. If applying the amended version of the law would have retroactive effect, we should presume the legislature did not intend that it be so applied. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 261-62, 114 S. Ct. at 1505. In the present case, the first question that must be asked is whether our General Assembly has expressly addressed whether the provision in question applies to pending cases. I believe that it has. The amended act contains the following sentence: “This amendatory Act of 1997 (PA. 90 — 514) is intended as a clarification of existing law and not as a new enactment.” 735 ILCS 5/12 — 112 (West 1998). Such a statement indicates that the legislature intended the amendment to have retroactive reach. See Harris Bank St. Charles v. Weber, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1079-80 (1998); In re Stacy, 223 B.R 132, 136 (N.D. Ill. 1998). See also Varelis v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 167 Ill. 2d 449, 462-63 (1995). As such, this court should give effect to that expressed intent. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 267, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 253-54, 114 S. Ct. at 1498 (noting that absent a violation of one of the specific constitutional antiretroactivity provisions, “the potential unfairness of retroactive civil legislation is not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give a statute its intended scope”). Defendants argue that the application of the amended version of section 12 — 112 to their case would violate rights secured to defendants by the due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I of the Illinois Constitution. After reviewing the cases cited by defendants in support of this contention, I am unable to discern any perfected interest interference which the Constitution would prohibit. This case presents this court with the chance to reaffirm the use of the traditional “presumption against statutory retroactivity,” a notion “founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice” and which “accords with long held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 286, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 265, 114 S. Ct. at 1508. The reasonableness of such a rule was best expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf: “The presumption against statutory retroactivity had special force in the era in which courts tended to view legislative interference with property and contract rights circumspectly. In this century, legislation has come to supply the dominant means of legal ordering, and circumspection has given way to greater deference to legislative judgments. [Citations.] But while the constitutional impediments to retroactive civil legislation are now modest, prospectivity remains the appropriate default rule. Because it accords with widely held intuitions about how statutes ordinarily operate, a presumption against retroactivity will generally coincide with legislative and public expectations. Requiring clear intent assures that Congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential unfairness of retroactive application and determined that it is an acceptable price to pay for the countervailing benefits. Such a requirement allocates to Congress responsibility for fundamental policy judgments concerning the proper temporal reach of statutes, and has the additional virtue of giving legislators a predictable background rule against which to legislate.” (Emphasis in original.) Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 272-73, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 256-57, 114 S. Ct. at 1500-01. It is my hope that the approach I offer here will be considered in future cases. JUSTICE McMORROW joins in this special concurrence.