effect. {18} Though the presumption against the retrospective application of a statute may seem straightforward, “confusion often arises as to what retroactivity means in particular contexts.” Morales, 2010-NMSC-026, ¶ 9 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, “[a] statute ... is considered retroactive if it impairs vested rights ... or requires new obligations, imposes new duties, or affixes new disabilities to past transactions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, a statute does not operate retroactively just because it is applied to facts and conditions existing on its effective date, even though the condition results from events that occurred prior to its enactment. Id.', see Howell v. Heim, 118 N.M. 500, 506, 882 P.2d 541, 547 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Hansman v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 95 N.M.
holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect holding that a new regulation limiting the number of consecutive months an individual could receive general disability benefits did not have retroactive effect even when it took into account months prior to the promulgation of the regulation holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended