Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutetrialburden of proofstatute of limitations

defendantstatuteappellee

Related Cases

Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So.2d 1319, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1382

Facts

Marie Ziccardi filed a civil complaint in 1987 under section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes, alleging criminal acts committed against her by the defendants in 1979. The trial court dismissed her claims, stating that the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act did not take effect until 1986. Ziccardi contended that the Act should apply retroactively, as it was remedial in nature and aimed to correct issues with a previous statute.

The basis of the complaint, filed in 1987 under section 772.104 Florida Statutes, was alleged criminal acts perpetrated against her by the appellees in 1979.

Issue

Whether section 772.104, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1986, may be applied retroactively to allow a civil cause of action based on incidents that occurred in 1979.

The issue presented to us is whether section 772.104, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1986, may be applied retroactively to allow a civil cause of action based on incidents which happened in 1979.

Rule

Remedial statutes or those which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes.

It is well established that '[r]emedial statutes or [those] which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within … the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the legislative history of section 772.104 and determined that it was a remedial reenactment designed to address issues from its predecessor statute. The modification of the burden of proof was deemed procedural and did not constitute a substantive change in the law. Therefore, the court concluded that the statute could be applied retroactively to Ziccardi's claims.

Because we find that section 772.104 was a remedial reenactment, designed to correct problems resulting from the inclusion of its RICO predecessor provision, section 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1977) in the criminal statutes, it may be applied retroactively.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against defendants Francise Strother and Elizabeth Keeley due to the statute of limitations but reversed the dismissal regarding Elizabeth Strother, allowing the claims to proceed.

The order of dismissal is affirmed as to the appellees Francise Strother and Elizabeth Keeley. It is reversed as to Elizabeth Strother.

Who won?

Marie Ziccardi prevailed in part, as the court allowed her claims against Elizabeth Strother to proceed based on the retroactive application of the statute.

The court reversed the dismissal regarding the third defendant, Elizabeth Strother.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300

American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285, 1994 A.M.C. 913, 62 USLW 4130

Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S20

Cropp v. Interstate Distributor Co., 129 Or.App. 510, 880 P.2d 464

Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565, 56 USLW 4302