Cited by

Fuller, 169 N.H. at 160; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 615 (1993) (our final decision rests on fundamental fairness).

We held that such statutes “are called remedial and become operative on their effective date even though the actions which determined the substantive rights took place before the statute became effective.” Id.; see also Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 615 (1993) (“The statute, when applied to the facts of the present case, relates to antecedent facts, but it neither creates any new obligations nor establishes any new duties.”).

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613 (1993) (citations omitted).

However, this presumption is reversed when the statute is remedial in nature or affects only procedural rights.

Nevertheless, Pat’s Peak’s argument addresses only half of the question before us. Before determining whether the legislature can constitutionally apply a statute retrospectively, we must determine, as a matter of statutory construction, whether it intended to do so.

Nevertheless, “[i]n the final [analysis], the question of retrospective application rests on a determination of fundamental fairness, because the underlying purpose of all legislation is to promote justice.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613 (1993).

In that case, retrospective application is not unjust.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613 (1993) (citations omitted).

We will uphold the trial court’s decision “unless it is unsupported by the evidence or tainted by error of law.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613 (1993).

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613 (1993); accord 3A N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction §69:9, at 418-19 (6th ed. 2003) (“[Child] [s]upport statutes are given prospective operation only, unless the legislature has clearly indicated that retroactivity is intended.”).

Before considering whether application of new legislation to a particular matter violates the constitutional proscription against retrospective laws, we first determine whether the legislature intended the new law to apply prospectively or retroactively.

We will uphold the trial court’s decision unless it is unsupported by the evidence or tainted by an error of law.

Generally, substantive changes to statutes or rules are applied prospectively.

Where the rights affected by the statute are substantive, there is a presumption of prospectivity.

Therefore, the increased reach of the declaratory judgment statute merely allows the parties’ respective rights to be adjudicated in an additional forum, see Sholley, 111 N.H. at 365, 284 A.2d at 916; cf. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 615, 620 A.2d 1031, 1033 (1993) (statute establishing new procedure applied retrospectively because “it neither creates any new obligations nor establishes any new duties”), and at an earlier date, see Merchants Mut.

Furthermore, we note that these statutes merely alter the procedure by which taxpayers can challenge a town’s preexisting duty to proportionally assess taxes, cf. Dewey v. Stratford, 40 N.H. 203, 207 (1860) (abatement statutes are remedial and should be liberally construed), and that, therefore, they could be applied retrospectively to the taxpayers, Eldridge v. Eldridge, 136 N.H. 611, 613, 620 A.2d 1031, 1032 (1993) (“presumption of prospectivity [of statutes] is reversed.