DocketNumber: No. CV91-0239508S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2079, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 355
Judges: DORSEY, J.
Filed Date: 3/5/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Plaintiff was born in 1965. She testified the first incident occurred when she was four years old and the last occurred when she was twelve. Plaintiff is now a married woman, the mother of two children. She is presently hospitalized and has been hospitalized in the past and is receiving weekly psychotherapy focusing on the residual physical and psychological effects of the asserted sexual abuse. She offered her testimony and various medical reports and bills in order to convince the court that probable cause exists both as to liability and damages.
The court finds probable cause that at least some of these incidents occurred causing damage to plaintiff and that at least some of the medical, hospital and other bills submitted into evidence are causally related to these incidents. Accordingly, it is ordered that the plaintiff may attach to the value of $75,000 the real property of the defendant located at 126 West View Drive, Meriden, Connecticut. In addition the defendant is ordered to disclose to plaintiff any and all property, real or personal, in which he has an interest and any and all debts owing to him. Before arriving at this conclusion the court determined that
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section
52-577d of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:Notwithstanding the provisions of section
52-577 , no action to recover damages for personal injury to a minor, including emotional distress, caused by sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault may be brought by such person later than [two] SEVENTEEN years from the date such person attains the age of majority. [, except that no such action may be brought more than seven years from the date of the act complained of.]
CT Page 2081
Newly enacted statutes are generally given only prospective effect unless there is clear evidence that the legislature intended to give the statute retroactive effect. State v. Vilalastra,
DORSEY, JUDGE