California Courts and Repealed Statutes

There are a number of reported California appellate court decisions addressing the issue of repealed statutes. Repealed statutes can raise issues including retroactive impact and vested rights. In addition, some decisions raise the issue of implied repeals, versus explicit ones.

First, what is the retroactive effect, if any, of a repealed statute? Although courts normally construe statutes to operate prospectively, when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions and, if final relief has not been granted before the repeal goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards, even if a judgment has been entered and the cause is pending on appeal. Frey v. Trans Union Corporation (2005) 127 Cal.App.4^th 986

Repealed statutes cannot adversely impact vested rights. The statutory rule that repeal of statutory rights not affecting vested rights applies retroactively applies even when a statutory enactment results in a partial, rather than a complete repeal, of an existing statute. Branick v. Downey Savings and Loan Association (2005) 24 Cal.Rptr.3^rd 406

What happens if a repealed statute does or does not contain a savings clause? Although the courts normally construe statutes to operate prospectively, when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, a repeal of a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon. Benson v. Kwikset Corporation (2005) 24 Cal.Rptr.3^rd 683

Moreover, state courts have been clear that repeals with operate prospectively if they impact vested rights or remedies. As a result, repeal of a statute which provides a remedy to a party is fully prospective and applies to pending actions. People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4^th 386, review denied

The issue of an implied repeal can raise important issues and so California courts generally limit their finding of an “implied,” rather than an explicit repeal of a statute. The court of appeal will find an implied repeal of a statute only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes and the statutes are irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 521

Moreover, there is a presumption against repeals of statutes by implication, and they will occur only where two acts are so inconsistent that there is no possibility of concurrent operation or where a later provision gives undebatable evidence of intent to supersede the earlier. Courts are bound to maintain the integrity of both statutes if they may stand together. People v. Bustamante (1997) 57 Cal.App.4^th 693