A.B. v. S.U., 298 A.3d 573

The Vermont Legislature in 2019 amended 12 V.S.A. § 522 to abolish the limitations period for childhood sexual-abuse civil claims and made that change retroactive; for claims that would have been barred on June 30, 2019, entity liability requires a finding of gross negligence.
Plaintiff filed suit in May 2020 alleging sexual abuse in 1983 and relied on the 2019 § 522 retroactivity provision to revive otherwise time-barred claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing § 522(d) violates Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution (state due process) by reviving an expired limitations defense and thus depriving them of a vested right not to be sued.
The State intervened to defend the statute; the trial court denied dismissal, treating the challenge as as-applied and concluding limitations periods are remedial (not vested rights).
The Vermont Supreme Court accepted an interlocutory appeal limited to whether § 522’s retroactive revival violates Article 4.
The Supreme Court affirmed: limitations periods are legislative remedial devices, not vested property rights protected by Article 4, so retroactive revival of civil claims under § 522 does not violate the Vermont Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 12 V.S.A. § 522’s retroactive abolition of the childhood-sexual-abuse limitations period violates Ch. I, Art. 4 (due process).	§ 522 is a lawful legislative change to remedies; retroactivity is permitted and the statute is constitutional.	Retroactive revival deprives defendants of a vested right in an expired statute-of-limitations defense and therefore violates Article 4.	Affirmed for plaintiff: limitations are remedial, not vested rights; retroactive revival does not violate Article 4.
Whether Vermont’s Article 4 provides greater protection than the federal Due Process Clause such that federal precedent forbidding revival would not control.	Vermont follows federal due-process framework; defendants must show why Article 4 differs.	Article 4 should be interpreted more protectively to prevent retroactive revivals.	Defendants failed to show Article 4 offers greater protection; federal precedent is persuasive and applicable.
Whether concerns about stale evidence and unfairness (and analogies to criminal cases) render § 522 unconstitutional.	Civil remedial changes are permissible; criminal protections (e.g., Ex Post Facto) do not apply.	Passage of time unfairly impairs defense and notice, so retroactivity is fundamentally unfair.	Rejected: criminal-case protections (Stogner) do not control civil due-process analysis; litigation difficulties do not create a vested right under Article 4.

Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 (legislature may restore remedies; expired limitations are not vested property rights)
Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (limitations are pragmatic devices about the privilege to litigate)
Int’l Union v. Robbins & Myers, 429 U.S. 229 (retroactive civil limitations changes do not automatically violate due process)
William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & S.I.R. Co., 268 U.S. 633 (distinguishes statutes that create liability from mere changes to limitations; retroactivity of limitations depends on context)
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (criminal ex post facto context; not controlling for civil statute-of-limitations revival)
Sheehan v. Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, 15 A.3d 1247 (Del. 2011) (upholding statute reviving childhood-sex-abuse claims; limitations relate to remedy)
Mitchell v. Roberts, 469 P.3d 901 (Utah 2020) (holding revival violated Utah due-process provision; distinguished by court here)
Carter v. Fred’s Plumbing & Heating Inc., 816 A.2d 490 (Vt. 2002) (statute limiting availability of remedy, not creating vested right)
Earle v. State, 743 A.2d 1101 (Vt. 1999) (retroactivity provision in § 522 superseded general rule on which limitations period applies)
Barquin v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 275 (D. Vt. 1993) (federal district court rejecting federal due-process challenge to retroactive application of § 522)