Opinion
Page 284c
109Cal.App.4th284c —Cal.Rptr.2d— JENNY HERMANSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JEFFREY HERMANSON et al., as Trustees, etc., Defendants and Respondents. G030281 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division May 30, 2003Super. Ct. No. A-208320
OPINION
ARONSON, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 30, 2003, is hereby modified in the following particulars:
1. On page 5, delete the first portion of the first sentence of the second full paragraph [108 Cal.App.4th 445, advance report, 1st full par.], and replace with the following:
The Legislature took up the gauntlet and quickly responded by adding subdivision (d) to section 21305:
2. On page 6, lines 3 and 4 [108 Cal.App.4th 445, advance report, 1st full par. (correction made in adv. rep. opn.)], delete the citation which begins "(Sen. Com. on Judiciary, . . .", and replace with the following:
(Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1878 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 15, 2002, p. 7.)
3. Also on page 6, after the last sentence in the first full paragraph [108 Cal.App.4th 445, advance report, 2d full par.], add the following:
That Hermanson's petition had been heard and denied before the statutory clarification took effect is of no moment. A statute does not operate retrospectively if it merely clarifies existing law, and "[e]ven a material change in statutory language may demonstrate legislative intent only to clarify the statute's meaning." (Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1024, fn. 2 [130 Cal.Rptr.2d 662, 63 P.2d 220].) Here, the legislative history demonstrates the change was made to clarify the statute's meaning and put to rest Hoffman's misconstruction.
Page 284d
This modification does not change the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., and O'LEARY, J., CONCURRED.