## Facts

- Terry Mitchell alleged that Richard Warren Roberts sexually abused her in 1981 when she was sixteen, during interactions connected to a criminal case in which Roberts was a prosecuting attorney and Mitchell a witness.
- Mitchell later filed civil claims in federal court in Utah based on the alleged abuse.
- Mitchell conceded her claims were expired under the limitations periods in effect before 2016.
- Mitchell relied on Utah Code § 78B-2-308(7) (2016), which purported to allow certain child sexual abuse claims to be brought even if they were time-barred as of July 1, 2016, if filed within specified extended periods.
- Roberts challenged the constitutionality of retroactively reviving expired claims, asserting a vested statute-of-limitations defense under the Utah Constitution.
- The federal court certified questions to the Utah Supreme Court concerning the legislature’s authority to revive time-barred claims and the effect of the statute’s express revival language.

## Issues

1. Whether the Utah Legislature may constitutionally revive civil claims that were already time-barred, thereby eliminating a defendant’s fully accrued statute-of-limitations defense.
2. Whether Utah Code § 78B-2-308(7)’s attempt to revive claims time-barred as of July 1, 2016 violates Utah constitutional due process by impairing vested rights.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court held that the legislature lacks constitutional power to retroactively eliminate a fully accrued statute-of-limitations defense.
- The court concluded that a ripened statute-of-limitations defense is a vested right protected by the Utah Constitution’s due process guarantee.
- The court held unconstitutional Utah Code § 78B-2-308(7) to the extent it purported to revive claims that were already time-barred as of July 1, 2016.
- As applied, Mitchell’s claims remained time-barred and could not be revived by the 2016 enactment.
- The court answered the certified questions accordingly and returned the case to federal court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Utah Constitution, retroactive civil legislation may not eliminate or impair vested rights protected by due process.
- Once the limitations period has run, the defendant’s statute-of-limitations defense is a vested right for due process purposes.
- A statute that revives already time-barred claims by nullifying an accrued limitations defense violates Utah constitutional due process, regardless of remedial legislative aims.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that due process protects a defendant’s fully accrued statute-of-limitations defense as a vested right, and the legislature therefore cannot revive already expired civil claims; Utah Code § 78B-2-308(7) was unconstitutional insofar as it attempted such revival, leaving Mitchell’s claims time-barred.


Mitchell v. Roberts, 469 P.3d 901 (Utah 2020)