On October 15, 2025, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ball v. Roman Catholic Bishop, holding that the State's 2020 amendment eliminating statutes of limitations for sexual-assault claims cannot be applied retroactively to revive claims that were previously time-barred. The Court grounded its decision in the state constitution which affords private parties a vested right to assert a statute-of-limitations defense.
The plaintiff’s cause of action arose from allegations of abuse at a Diocese-affiliated summer program in the mid-1970s. Under the statute of limitations in effect at the time, any potential claim had to be filed by 1986, the year the plaintiff turned 20. The plaintiff, instead, filed suit in 2023, asserting the action was permitted under the 2020 amendment.
The Diocese moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was no longer actionable under the prior law. The trial court granted this motion, finding that allowing the claim to procced would violate Part 1, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution which prohibits retrospective laws as they are "highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, noting that while retrospective application of a statute may be permissible in limited circumstances, this amendment falls outside those exceptions. In making its decision, the Court analyzed whether the law affected substantive rights and liabilities, or merely the procedures and remedies used to enforce them. The Court determined that because the statute-of-limitations period on the plaintiff’s claim had already expired, the defendant’s statute-of-limitations defense had become a “vested right.” Consequently, the Court concluded that reviving the claim would impair that right and, thus, be unconstitutional.
This decision reinforces the distinction between procedural changes and substantive rights in New Hampshire law. Vested statute-of-limitations defenses are substantive protections, not just procedural details.
For more information on this ruling or similar legal challenges, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com.