statute of limitations defense in Pennsylvania

2025Grp., Inc., 247 A.3d 1155, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2021) (noting that “[g]enerally, a statute of limitations defense is properly raised in new matter . . .”); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030(a).

2023See Sayers v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc., 247 A.3d 1155, 1159 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“Generally, a statute of limitations defense is properly raised in new matter and not in preliminary objections.”); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030(a) (“[A]ll affirmative defenses including but not limited to the defenses of ... statute of limitations ... shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading ‘New Matter’ ”). -3- J-A20039-22 Norfolk Southern then filed this appeal to argue that summary judgment should have been granted because Edwards waited until after the statute of limitations to apply to be app

2023See Groff, 548 A.2d at 1244 (concluding that pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 306 (now Rule 578), the defendant waived a challenge to the statute of limitations because he failed to raise the issue in a pretrial motion); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 578, cmt. (providing the types of relief that are appropriate for omnibus pretrial motions under Rule 578 and stating that “rule is not intended to limit other types of motions, oral or written, made pretrial or during trial[.] The earliest feasible submissions and rulings on such motions are encouraged.”); Darush, 459 A.2d at 730 n.4; Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190

2017Commonwealth v. Corban Corp., 909 A.2d 406, 411 (Pa.Super. 2006), affirmed, 957 A.2d 274 (Pa. 2008), citing Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185, 1190 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 878 A.2d 864 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237, 1244 (Pa.Super. 1988).

2024See Trial Court Opinion, 8/23/2023, at 7 n.2; see also Croyle v. Dellape, 832 A.2d 466, 476 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“As a general rule, a statute of limitations defense must be raised in new matter or else it is waived.”). -7- J-S03032-24 prejudice, allow them to retain possession of the property, and to “award any damages or relief as deemed appropriate.” Id., Wherefore Clause.

2024See Trial Court Opinion, 8/23/2023, at 7 n.2; see also Croyle v. Dellape, 832 A.2d 466, 476 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“As a general rule, a statute of limitations defense must be raised in new matter or else it is waived.”). -7- J-S03032-24 prejudice, allow them to retain possession of the property, and to “award any damages or relief as deemed appropriate.” Id., Wherefore Clause.

2023See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, [] 682 A.2d 347, 349 (Pa. Super. 1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, [] 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, [] 479 A.2d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial). - 17 - J-S34011-22 Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190 .

2014Stover, 538 A.2d at 1339 . … See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, 452 Pa. Super. 403 , 682 A.2d 347, 349 (1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, 393 Pa. Super. 236 , 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, 330 Pa. Super. 201 , 479 A.2d 509, 515 (1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial).

2021See Allen I, 59 A.3d 677 (affirming dismissal of ____________________________________________ 1 We note that in Allen II, our Supreme Court criticized Allen I, holding that the Commonwealth Court erred by relying “on a statute of limitations analysis to resolve the timeliness" of the motion filed by the appellant, concluding instead that the “failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the charges result[ed] in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone return petition.” Allen II, 107 A.3d 709, 718 . -2-

2016In its review of this Court’s Allen decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “rejected] the Commonwealth Court's reliance on a statute of limitations analysis to resolve the timeliness of [the ajppellee’s return motion[.]" Allen, 107 A.3d at 718.

2026See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(a); El-Gharbaoui v. Ajayi, 260 A.3d 944, 963 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“An affirmative defense, including a statute of limitations defense, may not be raised by general averment but, rather, must be supported by factual allegations sufficient to give rise to the affirmative defense.” (citation omitted)).12 To the degree that DHS invokes the statute of limitations based on the 1998 letter to Watchtower, see Answer & New Matter ¶ 89, DHS failed to identify any issues of material fact that Ivy Hill knew or should have known of the 1998 letter mandated reporter of child abuse and (2)

2024“A statute of limitations defense is generally raised in new matter.” El- Gharbaoui, 260 A.3d at 962 (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030(a)).

2025See Rellick-Smith v. Rellick, 147 A.3d 897, 901 (Pa. Super. 2016). -3- J-A10006-25 testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be considered to dispose of the legal issues presented by the demurrer.

2021Rellick-Smith, supra. The court rejected Appellant’s contention that, under the coordinate jurisdiction rule, Judge Bianco was required to hold that Appellees waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in new matter.

2023See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, [] 682 A.2d 347, 349 (Pa. Super. 1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, [] 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, [] 479 A.2d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial). - 17 - J-S34011-22 Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190 .

2014Stover, 538 A.2d at 1339 . … See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, 452 Pa. Super. 403 , 682 A.2d 347, 349 (1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, 393 Pa. Super. 236 , 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, 330 Pa. Super. 201 , 479 A.2d 509, 515 (1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial).

2023See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, [] 682 A.2d 347, 349 (Pa. Super. 1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, [] 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, [] 479 A.2d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial). - 17 - J-S34011-22 Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190 .

2014Stover, 538 A.2d at 1339 . … See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, 452 Pa. Super. 403 , 682 A.2d 347, 349 (1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, 393 Pa. Super. 236 , 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, 330 Pa. Super. 201 , 479 A.2d 509, 515 (1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial).

2009In Borough of Nanty Glo v. Fatula, 826 A.2d 58 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), our court stated that “it is improper to raise a statute of limitations defense in preliminary objections ... [hjowever, ‘where a party erroneously asserts substantive defenses in preliminary objections rather than to [sic] raise these defenses by answer or in new matter, the failure of the opposing party to file preliminary objections to the defective preliminary objections, raising the erroneous defenses, waives the procedural defect and allows the trial court to rule on the preliminary objections.’ ” Id. at 64 (citing Preiser

2009In Borough of Nanty Glo v. Fatula, 826 A.2d 58 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), our court stated that “it is improper to raise a statute of limitations defense in preliminary objections ... [hjowever, ‘where a party erroneously asserts substantive defenses in preliminary objections rather than to [sic] raise these defenses by answer or in new matter, the failure of the opposing party to file preliminary objections to the defective preliminary objections, raising the erroneous defenses, waives the procedural defect and allows the trial court to rule on the preliminary objections.’ ” Id. at 64 (citing Preiser

2018See Commonwealth v. Corban Corp. , 909 A.2d 406 , 411 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2018See Commonwealth v. Corban Corp., 909 A.2d 406, 411 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2023See also[] Commonwealth v. Morrow, [] 682 A.2d 347, 349 (Pa. Super. 1996) (proper procedure for raising a statute of limitations claim is in an omnibus pretrial motion); Commonwealth v. Vidmosko, [] 574 A.2d 96, 97-98 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statute of limitations claim waived when not raised prior to trial); Commonwealth v. Riley, [] 479 A.2d 509, 515 (Pa. Super. 1984) (statute of limitations claim is waived when not raised pre-trial). - 17 - J-S34011-22 Rossetti, 863 A.2d at 1190 .

2015In Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 583 Pa. 689 , 878 A.2d 864 (2005), this court found the defendant’s statute of limitations claim raised in post-sentence motions to be waived, stating, In Commonwealth v. Darush, 501 Pa. 15 , 20 n. 4, 459 A.2d 727 , 730 n. 4 (1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a statute of limitations claim is waived if not raised in a pretrial omnibus motion seeking dismissal of the charges.

2005Our Supreme Court has stated that a defendant is es-topped from raising a statute of limitations defense when “through fraud or concealment, the defendant causes the plaintiff to relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry.” Molineux v. Reed, 516 Pa. 398, 402 , 532 A.2d 792, 794 (1987) (quoting Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 405 , 189 A.2d 267, 269 (1963)).

2005Our Supreme Court has stated that a defendant is es-topped from raising a statute of limitations defense when “through fraud or concealment, the defendant causes the plaintiff to relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry.” Molineux v. Reed, 516 Pa. 398, 402 , 532 A.2d 792, 794 (1987) (quoting Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 405 , 189 A.2d 267, 269 (1963)).

2001The purpose of the rule identifying the filing of the praecipe as the commencement of the action, without regard to when the prothonotary actually issued the writ or the sheriff served it, was “to free the plaintiff from the risk that the statute of limitations may bar him if he acts in time, but someone else fails to act in time.” Lamp, 366 A.2d at 887 , quoting Salay v. Braun, 427 Pa. 480 , 235 A.2d 368, 371 (1967).

2001The purpose of the rule identifying the filing of the praecipe as the commencement of the action, without regard to when the prothonotary actually issued the writ or the sheriff served it, was “to free the plaintiff from the risk that the statute of limitations may bar him if he acts in time, but someone else fails to act in time.” Lamp, 366 A.2d at 887 , quoting Salay v. Braun, 427 Pa. 480 , 235 A.2d 368, 371 (1967).

1999Smith, 543 Pa. at 300-301 , 670 A.2d at 1148-1149 .

1997See Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Concept Planners & Designers), 543 Pa. 295 , 670 A.2d 1146 (1996).

2025Booher v. Olczak, 797 A.2d 342, 346 (Pa.Super. 2002).

2025Booher v. Olczak, 797 A.2d 342, 346 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2025Scavo v. Old Forge Borough, 978 A.2d 1076, 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 12 were confiscated in April of 2018, but did not file suit until December of 2023, his claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

2021Scavo v. Old Forge Borough, 978 A.2d 1076, 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2025There are two places a petitioner can allege such facts: “(1) by pleading sufficient facts in the complaint, or (2) by raising the discovery rule in response to the defendant’s statute of limitations defense.” SpiriTrust Lutheran v. Wagman Constr., Inc., 314 A.3d 894, 906 (Pa. Super. 2024).

2025“Either way, the plaintiff must allege facts showing plaintiff’s lack of prior knowledge regarding the nature of the alleged injury, and why plaintiff could not have learned of it at an earlier point.” Id.

2022Tax Claim Bureau, 127 A.3d 848, 851 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015) (“[A] cause of action to set aside a tax sale on the basis of deficient notice accrued and the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the tax sale.”).] The purchaser at the 2012 tax sale, Defendant [Haviv] David, recorded the deed on October 12, 2012, which put the public and Plaintiff on notice.

2022Tax Claim Bureau, 127 A.3d 848 , 851 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015) (“[A] cause of action to set aside a tax sale on the basis of deficient notice accrued and the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the tax sale.”).] The purchaser at the 2012 tax sale, Defendant [Haviv] David, recorded the deed on October 12, 2012, which put the public and Plaintiff on notice.

2023In Commonwealth v. Darush, [] 459 A.2d 727 , 730 n.4 (Pa. 1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a statute of limitations claim is waived if not raised in a pretrial omnibus motion seeking dismissal of the charges.

2015In Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 583 Pa. 689 , 878 A.2d 864 (2005), this court found the defendant’s statute of limitations claim raised in post-sentence motions to be waived, stating, In Commonwealth v. Darush, 501 Pa. 15 , 20 n. 4, 459 A.2d 727 , 730 n. 4 (1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a statute of limitations claim is waived if not raised in a pretrial omnibus motion seeking dismissal of the charges.

1990While the plaintiffs herein, Robert and Anne Hughes, may have been barred by the statute from bringing suit against appellant, this had no effect upon the Prons’ ability to join appellant as an additional defendant: “The fact that the statute of limitations will bar the plaintiff from a direct recovery against the additional defendant can have no effect on the defendant’s right to enforce his claim of contribution or indemnity ...” 286 Pa.Super. at 426 , 429 A.2d at 12 (citing Goodrich-Am-ram Rules of Civil Procedure, Comments on Rule 2252(a)-9) (quotation marks and additional citations omitte

1990While the plaintiffs herein, Robert and Anne Hughes, may have been barred by the statute from bringing suit against appellant, this had no effect upon the Prons’ ability to join appellant as an additional defendant: “The fact that the statute of limitations will bar the plaintiff from a direct recovery against the additional defendant can have no effect on the defendant’s right to enforce his claim of contribution or indemnity ...” 286 Pa.Super. at 426 , 429 A.2d at 12 (citing Goodrich-Am-ram Rules of Civil Procedure, Comments on Rule 2252(a)-9) (quotation marks and additional citations omitte

1984Even where the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure specify when and how the statute of limitations defense is to be raised, our courts have held that “a lower court will not be reversed either for waiving or refusing to waive noncompliance with procedural rules in the absence of showing of an abuse of discretion which has caused manifest and palpable injury to the complaining party.” Gagliardi v. Lynn, 446 Pa. 144, 151 , 285 A.2d 109, 112 (1971), quoting Templeton Appeal, 399 Pa. 10, 16 , 159 A.2d 725, 729 (1960).

1984Even where the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure specify when and how the statute of limitations defense is to be raised, our courts have held that “a lower court will not be reversed either for waiving or refusing to waive noncompliance with procedural rules in the absence of showing of an abuse of discretion which has caused manifest and palpable injury to the complaining party.” Gagliardi v. Lynn, 446 Pa. 144, 151 , 285 A.2d 109, 112 (1971), quoting Templeton Appeal, 399 Pa. 10, 16 , 159 A.2d 725, 729 (1960).

2023See Riccio, 705 A.2d at 425 ; see also Pa.R.C.P. 1030 (providing that a statute of limitations defense should be raised in new matter); cf. Pa.R.C.P. 20128(a)(4), note (stating that a statute of limitations defense should not be asserted in preliminary objections but new matter).

2021It recounted that, in Riccio v. American Republic Insurance Co., 705 A.2d 422 (Pa. 1997), this Court explained that, when determining whether the coordinate jurisdiction rule applies, we “look[] to where the rulings occurred in the context of the procedural posture of the case,” and stated: Where the motions differ in kind, as preliminary objections differ from motions for judgment on the pleadings, which differ from motions for summary judgment, a judge ruling on a later motion is not precluded from granting relief although another judge had denied an earlier motion.

2023Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160, 1167 (Pa.Super. 2004).

2017This Court applied Harber in the context of a statute of limitations defense in Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2022See Cooper v. Dowington School Dist., 357 A.2d 619, 621 (Pa. Super. 1976) (addressing merits of a statute of limitations defense raised by preliminary objections in the interest of judicial economy, where no objection to such procedure was made); see also Sayers -2- J-A09034-22 either argument for dismissal.

1983Appellee has raised the defense of the statute of limitations by a demurrer in preliminary objections filed after the judgment was opened. 1 Since the statute of limitations defense here was not a non-waivable *233 defense within the meaning of Pa.R.C.P. 1017(b)(4), it should have been pleaded under new matter as prescribed by Pa.R.C.P. 1030.' However, we have reached the merits of the statute of limitations defense at this time for the reasons stated by our distinguished colleague Judge Gwilym A. Price, Jr. in Cooper v. Downihgtown School District, 238 Pa.Super. 404 , 357 A.2d 619 (1976): Fir