Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-2023
Keywords
Arkansas Act 1036, Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act, statute of limitations, retroactive-legislation doctrine, Arkansas, remedies
Abstract
In 2021, the Arkansas General Assembly overwhelmingly approved Act 1036, the Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act. This Act amends the statute of limitations for “vulnerable victims” of sexual abuse. The Act allows a person who was either disabled, a minor, or both at the time he or she was a victim of sexual abuse to bring a civil action against an alleged abuser until the age of fifty-five (55)—replacing the former statutory age limit of twenty-one (21). The Act also revives previously time-barred claims for a period not earlier than six (6) months after and not later than thirty (30) months after July 28, 2021. At present, however, Arkansas’s retroactive-legislation doctrine likely renders the Act’s revival period invalid, as the Arkansas Supreme Court has characterized a statute-of-limitations defense as a substantive, vested property right. This Note argues that by recharacterizing a statute-of-limitations defense as a mode of procedure or remedy—rather than as a substantive right—Act 1036’s revival period would be allowed to stand without abandoning the established retroactive-legislation doctrine.
In 2021, the Arkansas General Assembly overwhelmingly approved Act 1036, the Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act. This Act amends the statute of limitations for “vulnerable victims” of sexual abuse. The Act allows a person who was either disabled, a minor, or both at the time he or she was a victim of sexual abuse to bring a civil action against an alleged abuser until the age of fifty-five (55)—replacing the former statutory age limit of twenty-one (21). The Act also revives previously time-barred claims for a period not earlier than six (6) months after and not later than thirty (30) months after July 28, 2021. At present, however, Arkansas’s retroactive-legislation doctrine likely renders the Act’s revival period invalid, as the Arkansas Supreme Court has characterized a statute-of-limitations defense as a substantive, vested property right. This Note argues that by recharacterizing a statute-of-limitations defense as a mode of procedure or remedy—rather than as a substantive right—Act 1036’s revival period would be allowed to stand without abandoning the established retroactive-legislation doctrine.
Citation
Jefferson, B. (2023). A New Wound for Old Scars: Why Act 1036 of 2021 is Unconstitutional and Why the Arkansas Retroactive-Legislation Doctrine Should Change. Arkansas Law Notes. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/arlnlaw/12
