AGO 1951-53 No. 5.

• Case Date: April 04, 1951
• Court: Washington

Washington Attorney General Opinions 1951. AGO 1951-53 No. 5. April 4, 1951[Orig. Op. Page 1]PRIVATEGARNISHMENT OF VETERANS' BONUS.Chapter 231, Laws of 1951 is retroactive and exempts veterans' bonuses from garnishment irregardless of the date such writ was served.Honorable Cliff YelleState AuditorOlympia, WashingtonCite as: AGO 1951-53 No. 5Attention: F. D. Keister Dear Sir: We have your letter of March 26, 1951 requesting our opinion on the following question: Does chapter 231, Laws of 1951, exempting the Veterans' bonus from garnishment, apply to the writs of garnishment served upon your office prior to the effective date of this law? Our conclusion may be summarized as follows: Chapter 231, Laws of 1951 is retroactive and exempts veterans' bonuses from garnishment regardless of the date such writs were served. ANALYSIS Whether a statute operates retrospectively as well as prospectively is dependent upon the intent of the legislature. The rule is set out in 50 Am.Jur. 501, and reads as follows: "Particular statutes or amendments are sometimes construed to have a retrospective effect, and even to apply to proceedings pending at the time of the enactment. A retrospective operation is given [Orig. Op. Page 2] to a statute or amendment where the intent that it should so operate clearly appears from a consideration of the act as a whole, or from the terms thereof which unqualifiedly give the statute a retrospective operation, or imperatively require such a construction, or negative the idea that it is to apply only to future cases. The rule that statutes or amendments are to be given a prospective operation merely, like all other rules of interpretation, is only resorted to to give effect to the presumed and reasonably probable intention of the legislature, when the terms of the statute or amendment do not of themselves make the intention certain or clear, and cannot be invoked to change or defeat the intention when it is made obvious or manifest by the terms of the statute or amendment. If it is unmistakable that an act was intended to operate retrospectively, that intention is controlling as to interpretation of the statute, even though it is not expressly so stated, and even though it thereby becomes invalid because it conflicts with constitutional prohibitions of retrospective legislation, the impairment of contracts, or the...