A.S. Vineyard Church of Overland Park d/b/a Vineyard Community Church,Vineyard USA, and Mark Warner

Olathe, Kansas personal injury lawyers reprsented the Plaintiff on a sexual abuse case.



In August 2021, A.S. filed a petition for damages and alleged that she was sexually abused as a child by Robert Bloom, her former youth pastor at Vineyard Church of Overland Park (VCOP). In addition to Bloom, A.S. named VCOP, Vineyard USA (VUSA), and Mark Warner as defendants in her claims of negligence and negligent supervision and training.



A.S. asserted that Bloom began sexually abusing her in 1997 when she was 14 years old. A.S. maintained a romantic relationship with Bloom until 2005 when she finally decided to terminate further contact with him; she was 21 years old at that time. Many years later, A.S. sought psychological treatment for anxiety, panic attacks, and depression and came to believe that her illnesses were attributable to the childhood sexual abuse Bloom perpetrated against her.



In March 2023, just shy of two years after A.S. initiated this action, each of the four named defendants moved for summary judgment. The Defendants argued that A.S.'s claims were time barred by the statute of limitations set forth under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-523(a). As support for their contention, the Defendants highlighted the following statutory language:



"No action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced more than three years after the date the person attains 18 years of age or more than three years from the date the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or illness was caused by childhood sexual abuse, whichever occurs later." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-523(a).



It was the Defendants' collective position that A.S. either knew, or reasonably should have known, for more than three years before she filed her petition, that her psychological ailments were the product of Bloom's abuse.



A.S. countered that the record demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to precisely when she discovered or should have discovered that her illnesses arose from the abuse. A.S. also argued that K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-523 contemplated a subjective standard, so her own testimony could establish that for more than three years before filing her petition she was unaware her condition was caused by Bloom's abuse.



On July 1, 2023, before the district court could rule on the Defendants' March 2023 summary judgment motions, a legislative amendment went into effect to eliminate the language from K.S.A. 60-523 which marked the discovery of injury or illness as a potential trigger for the statute of limitations. The modified provision read, in pertinent part:



"No action for recovery of damages for an injury or illness suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced more than 13 years after the date the victim attains 18 years of age or more than three years after the date of a criminal conviction for a crime described in subsection (b) related to such childhood sexual abuse, whichever occurs later." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-523(a).



VCOP and Warner soon supplemented their original summary judgment motions to highlight the amendment's removal of the window A.S. relied on to timely file her petition. They argued that the amended statute of limitations should be applied retroactively to bar A.S.'s action as untimely, even though her petition was filed two years before that amendment took effect. Soon after, VUSA and Bloom amended their own motions with similar contentions.



A.S. responded that the newly amended statute of limitations did not apply retroactively to an action already timely filed and pending. She further asserted that even if the district court deemed the amended statute applicable, her action was still properly considered timely because Bloom had not yet been convicted of any of the crimes identified in the statute.



The district court adopted the Defendants' position and applied the amended statute retroactively to grant their request for summary judgment. But the court noted that it would have denied their original motions because disputed material facts existed with respect to when A.S. discovered that her illnesses stemmed from Bloom's abuse, and that those facts should be submitted to a jury.



A.S. now brings her case before this court for a determination of whether the district court erred in applying the amended statute of limitations retroactively. Bloom cross-appeals, challenging the district court's assertion that it would have denied his original summary judgment motion on the grounds that a material fact existed with respect to when A.S. discovered the link between her illnesses and the abuse.



* * *



Legal issue Does the 2023 amendment to the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims apply retroactively to dismiss a case filed before the amendment?



CIVIL PROCEDURE. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The case examines whether a legislative amendment to the statute of limitations for civil claims of childhood sexual abuse can be applied retroactively to an action filed before the amendment. The court ruled that the 2023 amendment to K.S.A. 60-523 applies prospectively only, as its language does not clearly indicate retroactive intent, and retroactively applying it would violate vested rights.



CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. VESTED RIGHTS. The court determined that a cause of action accruing before a legislative amendment constitutes a vested property right, which cannot be retroactively abolished by the amendment without due process, reinforcing principles that vested rights are protected from retroactive legislative changes.



TORT LAW. DISCOVERY RULE. The court addressed the application of the discovery rule under the original statute of limitations, noting that whether the plaintiff should have discovered the injury's connection to childhood abuse more than three years prior to the lawsuit is a fact issue precluding summary judgment.



CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court upheld the district court's finding that genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's awareness of the abuse's impact existed, making summary judgment inappropriate under the original statute of limitations.



Key Phrases Statute of limitations. Retroactive application. Childhood sexual abuse. Vested property rights. Pending

litigation.