statute not yet construed by a court of last resort, “a clarifying enactment cannot be applied retrospectively when it contravenes a construction placed on the original statute by the judiciary.” State v. Dunaway, 743 P.2d 1237, 1241 n.6 (Wash. 1987); see State v. Rios, 237 P.3d 1052, 1057 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (“[O]nce the supreme court has rendered a final judgment interpreting a substantive statute, the Legislature cannot later retroactively construe what the statute meant in conflict with the judicial decision.”); McClung, 99 P.3d at 1020 (“Because this court had already fin.1ly and definitively interpreted [the statute at issue], the Legislature had no power to decide that the later amendment merely declared existing law.”); State v. Maples, 286 P.3d 386, 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, a statute intended “to correct a
holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision holding that statutory provision did not apply retrospectively based on bedrock principle that the legislature cannot contravene an existing judicial construction of a statute holding that a statutory right is a creature of the legislature and does not exist where the legislature has not acted