Sliney v. Previte, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-194-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11844 ROSANNE SLINEY vs. DOMENIC A. PREVITE, JR., & others.[1] Middlesex. October 8, 2015. – December 9, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Child Abuse. Limitations, Statute of. Due Process of Law, Child abuse, Statute of limitations, Retroactive application of statute. Practice, Civil, Statute of limitations. Statute, Retroactive application. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 30, 2012. The case was heard by Thomas R. Murtagh, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Carmen L. Durso (Mark F. Itzkowitz with him) for the plaintiff. Sylvia Katsenes for the defendant. Marci A. Hamilton, of Pennsylvania, & Erin K. Olson, for National Center for Victims of Crime & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. Until June, 2014, civil actions alleging sexual abuse of a minor, which may be brought pursuant to G. L. c. 260, § 4C (§ 4C), were governed by a three-year statute of limitations. G. L. c. 260, § 4C, as amended through St. 2011, c. 178, § 19. Section 4C was amended effective June 26, 2014, to extend the limitations period from three years to thirty-five years; the amending act contained a retroactivity provision, and an emergency preamble. St. 2014, c. 145, §§ 5, 8. The plaintiff, Rosanne Sliney, filed an action in 2012 alleging that her uncle, the defendant Domenic A. Previte, Jr., had sexually abused her between 1968 and 1977, when she was a child. Judgment entered in the Superior Court in June, 2012, dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. We consider here two questions: whether, in the circumstances presented, § 4C’s extended statute of limitations applies to the plaintiff’s case, and, if so, whether the retroactive application is constitutional. We answer both questions yes and, as a consequence, vacate the Superior Court judgment.[2] Background. 1. Factual background. In the Superior Court, this case was decided on Previte’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). We recite here the facts alleged in Sliney’s complaint and for purposes of this appeal we assume the facts to be true. Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 529-530 (2002) (motion for judgment on […]