Doe v. Roe
20 A.3d 787
| Md. | 2011Background
- Roe, born 29 September 1983, alleged Doe raped her when she was six/seven and again at eight.
- Roe reached adulthood 29 September 2001; prior law gave a three-year statute of limitations under §5-101.
- Chapter 360 of 2003 added § 5-117 extending the period for minors’ sexual-abuse claims to seven years after majority, effective 1 October 2003.
- Section 2 stated the Act may not be construed to revive actions barred under prior law; the uncodified provision is not codified but informs retroactivity analysis.
- Roe filed suit 3 September 2008; Circuit Court held claims time-barred; Court of Special Appeals held §5-117 could apply retroactively to not-yet-barred claims; this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5-117 applies retroactively to not-yet-barred claims | Roe contends retroactivity allowed revival of not-yet-barred claims | Doe urges prospective-only application or no retroactivity to not-yet-barred claims | §5-117 may be retroactive for not-yet-barred claims |
| Whether §5-117 is remedial/procedural and thus permissibly retrospective | Roe asserts remedial nature supports retroactive application | Doe contends it affects substantive rights if retroactive | §5-117 is remedial/procedural and retroactive to not-yet-barred claims |
| Whether Section 2 forecloses retroactive application | Roe argues Section 2 does not bar retroactive extension for not-yet-barred claims | Doe argues Section 2 expresses no retroactive revival | Section 2 does not prevent retrospective application to not-yet-barred claims under §5-117 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rawlings v. Rawlings, 362 Md. 535 (2001) (remedial/procedural statute may be applied retroactively absent contrary intent)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim, 376 Md. 276 (2003) (statute governing procedure/remedy can be retroactive)
- Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396 (2000) (remedial statute defined; corrections to law; no vested right to survive retroactivity)
- Slate v. Zitomer, 275 Md. 534 (1975) (presumption of prospectivity; wrongful death extension discussed)
- Blocher v. Harlow, 268 Md. 571 (1973) (remedial vs substantive distinction in extending limitations)
- Ali v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 416 Md. 249 (2010) (statutory extensions to limitations and retroactivity analyzed; remedial view favored)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (ex post facto concerns with retroactive revival of time-barred actions)