City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
445 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21, 105 P.3d 1163, 209 Ariz. 544 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A new statute of limitations does not apply retroactively to an action that was already pending when the statute became effective. For actions filed after a new, shorter statute of limitations takes effect, A.R.S. § 12-505(C) provides a one-year grace period to file claims that would otherwise be immediately time-barred.
Facts:
- In 1985, the City of Tucson enacted a sign code that regulated the size, location, and height of billboards.
- Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (and its predecessor, Whiteco) owned and maintained numerous billboards that did not conform to the City's 1985 sign code.
- Prior to 2000, Arizona law exempted political subdivisions like the City of Tucson from any statute of limitations for bringing civil enforcement actions.
- In 2000, the Arizona legislature enacted A.R.S. § 9-462.02(C), which established a two-year statute of limitations for municipalities to file actions for sign code violations, measured from the date of discovery.
- The new statute, A.R.S. § 9-462.02(C), became effective on July 18, 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 17, 2000, the City of Tucson sued Clear Channel in superior court (trial court) over 122 billboards.
- On July 17, 2001, the City amended its complaint, adding 51 more counts concerning other billboards.
- The superior court found that 89 of the 173 counts were for violations discovered more than two years prior to filing and dismissed those claims as time-barred under the new statute.
- The City of Tucson, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the new statute applied retroactively.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona granted the petition for review filed by the City of Tucson.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newly enacted two-year statute of limitations, A.R.S. § 9-462.02(C), apply retroactively to bar a municipality's zoning enforcement actions that were either filed before the statute's effective date or filed within the one-year grace period provided by A.R.S. § 12-505(C)?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurwitz, Justice
No. The new statute of limitations does not bar the City's claims because a new limitations period does not apply to suits pending at the time it becomes effective, and for claims that would be immediately barred upon enactment, a statutory one-year grace period applies. For the claims filed before the statute's effective date, the court relied on the settled rule that procedural changes, like a new statute of limitations, do not invalidate actions that were validly completed under the law then in effect. Since the City's initial complaint was timely when filed, the new statute could not retroactively bar it. For the claims filed after the effective date, the court analyzed A.R.S. § 12-505, a statute governing changes in limitations periods. It held that § 12-505(C) applies as a qualification to § 12-505(B), providing a one-year grace period for claims that were not previously time-barred but would be immediately barred by the new statute. Because the City previously had unlimited time to sue, the new two-year limit shortened that time and would have barred its claims; therefore, the City had one year from the statute's effective date to file, which it did.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Berch, Justice
No, for the claims filed before the effective date, but yes, for the claims filed after. The justice agreed with the majority that the claims filed before the new law took effect are valid and not subject to the new statute of limitations. However, she dissented regarding the claims filed after the effective date, arguing they should be time-barred. She contended that the one-year grace period in § 12-505(C) is inapplicable because it only applies when a new law shortens a time 'fixed in the pre-existing law.' Since the City previously had an 'infinite' rather than a 'fixed' time to sue, § 12-505(C) does not apply. Instead, § 12-505(B) should govern, which requires applying the new two-year limitations period from the date of discovery, thus barring the later-filed claims.
Analysis:
This decision provides a definitive interpretation of Arizona's framework for implementing new statutes of limitations, A.R.S. § 12-505. It establishes that the one-year grace period in subsection (C) applies not only when a specific, finite limitations period is shortened but also when a new limitations period is created for claims that previously had none, such as those by government entities. This ruling gives full effect to all provisions of the statute, preventing the immediate extinguishment of existing causes of action. The case sets a clear precedent that protects a claimant's right to their day in court by providing a predictable, one-year window to act after the legislature imposes a new, shorter time limit.
