HomeMy WebLinkAbout0781
the amendment, Chapter 80-364, as Plaintiff contenda, Would make
this.amendment unconstitutional, as it would interfere vith exiating
contract rights which were fixed prior to the enactment of the
amendment. Dewberry v Auto Owners Znsurance Company, 363 So2d 1077
(Fla. 1978). In effect, Plaintiffs are arguing that the amendment,
Chapter 80-364, should operate retrospectively, even tho~igh there is
no language in this amendment to indicate any such intention of the
Legislature.
A statute operates prospectively unless the intent
that it operate retroepectively is clearly expressed.
Indeed, an act should never be construed retrospec-
tively unless this was clearlq the intention of the
legislatute. This is especially so where the effect
of giving a retroactive operation would be to inter-
fere with an existing contract right, destroy a vested
right, or create a new liabilitq in connection with a
past transaction. The presumption is that it was in-
tended to operate prospectively, unless its language
requires that it be given a retroactive operation.
The basis for retrospective interpretation must be
unequivocal and leave no doubt as to the legislative
intent. 30 Fla. Jur. Statutes, 5151, quoted with
approval in Thayer v State, 335 So2d 815 (Fla. 1976).
It is thereupon
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's motion to dismiss
Count II of the amended complaint is granted, and Count II of the
amended complaint is hereby dismissed with pre~udice.
DONE and ORDERED this day of December, 1980.
Copies furnished to:
Michael Jeffries, Esq.
Bradford L. Jefferson, Esq.
~
ircuit o
i
~
3
R
7
~
3'
,
, -
~980 DEC 19 AM ~ 20
ST IUCIF ~~Y.fIA.
R06ER P 1RA5
CIERK CtRqNT COURT/~ -
RECGRB Vi RIFI! t! _~ 4~
511102
,
:
~ = ~w -
•'~'~~ ,~~ ~ . .,.
~
g~345 ~:~~ 779
- -~~ ~ =w ~¢~ .