for this Court to interpret the statute to extend the retroactive application of Chapter 248 so far that a child must pay back support already claimed, adjudicated, received, and expended through a paternity-related child support, or other compensatory order, during the period it was legally in effect. Likewise, this reasoning applies to any debt owed by a putative father through the prior support or compensatory order, which is enforceable at least until the putative father initiates proceedings to attack the paternity declaration to which the order relates. See 2 id. § 41.06, at 880 (“A vested right has been equated with ‘property’ in order to qualify it for protection from arbitrary interference.”); cf. Washington Nat’l Arena Ltd. Partnership, 287 Md. at 55, 410 A.2d at 1070 (<HOLDING>); cf. also Ferguson v. State ex. rel P.G., 977
holding no retroactive application holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding that retroactive application of a county tax increase on property recordations to recordations made prior to the increase would impair property rights in violation of the federal and state constitutions holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding retroactive application