Rosanne Sliney v. Domenic A. Previte, Jr., & others

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the 2014 amendment extending the statute of limitations for civil actions alleging childhood sexual abuse applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pending case. The court concluded that the retroactive application was constitutional and that the defendant had no vested right in the earlier statute-of-limitations defense or nonfinal judgment. The court vacated the Superior Court judgment dismissing the action.

Holdings

1. The 2014 amendment to G. L. c. 260, § 4C, applies retroactively to Sliney's action because the Legislature expressly and unequivocally directed that the amendment apply regardless of when an action accrued or was filed and regardless of whether the claim had lapsed or was time-barred.
2. The Superior Court judgment was not final when the 2014 amendment became effective because Sliney's petition for rehearing and application for further appellate review were still pending.
3. The retroactive application of the amended limitations period is constitutional as applied to Previte.
4. Section 8 of St. 2014, c. 145, does not violate art. 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because it does not single out a small group of individuals for special advantages.
5. The court did not decide whether the 1991 release barred Sliney's claims; that issue required factual development and could be pursued on remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2014 amendment to G. L. c. 260, § 4C, extending the limitations period for civil actions alleging sexual abuse of a minor, applied retroactively to Sliney's action.
2. Whether the retroactive application of the amended limitations period was constitutional under due process principles and art. 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
3. Whether the Superior Court judgment was final when the amendment became effective while Sliney's petition for rehearing and application for further appellate review were pending.
4. Whether the 1991 release barred Sliney's action.

Disposition

vacated