Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5109 (2026)

Extinguishment of claim for relief.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5109. Extinguishment of claim for relief.

A claim for relief with respect to a transfer or obligation under this chapter is extinguished unless action is brought:

(1) under section 5104(a)(1) (relating to transfer or obligation voidable as to present or future creditor), not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, not later than one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; or

(2) under section 5104(a)(2) or 5105(a) (relating to transfer or obligation voidable as to present creditor), not later than four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

(Dec. 22, 2017, P.L.1249, No.78, eff. 60 days)

2017 Amendment. See section 7 of Act 78 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to applicability.

Cross References. Section 5109 is referred to in section 5107 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Finkel v. Polichuk (In re Polichuk), 506 B.R. 405 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Finkel v. Polichuk (In re Polichuk), 506 B.R. 405 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 6× “By order dated November 28, 2010 (Doc. # 61), I rejected their argument, reasoning as follows: [T]he Trustee’s Complaint sets forth facts which, if proven, may result in the application of a different, even longer reachback period than the four year period provided in 12 Pa.”

Philadelphia Ent. & Dev. Partners, LP v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dep't of Revenue, 879 F.3d 492 (3rd Cir. 2018). “12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5109 . 2 . The Commonwealth raised an Eleventh Amendment defense in its pleadings which the Bankruptcy Court upheld with respect to state law claims that PEDP advanced in its adversary complaint but with which we are not concerned on this appeal.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cordua, 834 F. Supp. 2d 301 (E.D. Pa. 2011). · cites it 3× “See 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109; see also Hecht v. Malvern Preparatory School, 716 F.”

K-B Bldg., Co. v. Sheesley Constr., Inc., 833 A.2d 1132 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “This position does not comport with the language of 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109, which provides that an action must be brought within one year of the date the transfer could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence or within four years of the transfer.”

Hecht v. Malvern Preparatory Sch., 716 F. Supp. 2d 395 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “12 Pa.C.S. § 5109(1). To the extent the Receiver seeks to recover assets transferred to Malvern by Forte or the Hooper Foundation before March 29, 2006—four *399 years before she initiated the instant action—she may do so only if she meets § 5109’s one year discovery…”

Finn v. All. Bank, 838 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “280 (2011); 12 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5109 (1999); R.I.”

Titus v. Shearer, 498 B.R. 508 (W.D. Pa. 2013). “The Trustee argues that, while the PUFTA statute of repose, 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5109 , extinguishes any claims prior to April 23, 2003, it does not limit the ability to seek recovery for transfers made after the filing of the complaint.”

In Re Blatstein, 244 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, the Blatsteins averred that, even if the Trustee could point to any such other evidence in the record, the statute of limitations under the PUFTA reaches back only to transfers occurring on or after February 1, 1994, citing 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109. Furthermore, the…”

Kartman v. North Suburban Tree Serv. Inc. (In Re Kartman), 354 B.R. 70 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2006). “12 Pa.C.S. § 5109(1). As noted, Kartman did not specifically address the elements of the Act in his Amended Complaint despite being given the opportunity to do so by the Court following grant of the Defendant’s original Motion to Dismiss.”

718 Arch Street Assocs., Ltd. v. Blatstein, 244 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, the Blatsteins averred that, even if the Trustee could point to any such other evidence in the record, the statute of limitations under the PUFTA reaches back only to transfers occurring on or after February 1, 1994, citing 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109. Furthermore, the…”

Santander Bank, N.A. v. BB&T Corp. (M.D. Penn. 2020). · cites it 2× “First, BB&T argues it is entitled to summary judgment because Santander’s claim under PUFTA is extinguished by operation of PUFTA’s statute of limitations, 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109. Second, BB&T argues it is entitled to summary judgment by virtue of the good faith affirmative defense…”

Brosky, W. v. MJC Indus., Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “We note however that UFTA, 12 Pa.C.S. §5109(2)provides that a cause ofaction with respect to a fraudulent transfer is extinguished unless the action is brought "under section 5104(a)(2) or 5105 (relating to transfers fraudulent as to present creditors), within four years after…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5109(1) — 4 cases

Finkel v. Polichuk (In re Polichuk), 506 B.R. 405 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2014). “By order dated November 28, 2010 (Doc. # 61), I rejected their argument, reasoning as follows: [T]he Trustee’s Complaint sets forth facts which, if proven, may result in the application of a different, even longer reachback period than the four year period provided in 12 Pa.”

K-B Bldg., Co. v. Sheesley Constr., Inc., 833 A.2d 1132 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “This position does not comport with the language of 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109, which provides that an action must be brought within one year of the date the transfer could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence or within four years of the transfer.”

— 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5109(2) — 5 cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Cordua, 834 F. Supp. 2d 301 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “See 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109; see also Hecht v. Malvern Preparatory School, 716 F.”

In Re Blatstein, 244 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000). “Alternatively, the Blatsteins averred that, even if the Trustee could point to any such other evidence in the record, the statute of limitations under the PUFTA reaches back only to transfers occurring on or after February 1, 1994, citing 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109. Furthermore, the…”

718 Arch Street Assocs., Ltd. v. Blatstein, 244 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000). “Alternatively, the Blatsteins averred that, even if the Trustee could point to any such other evidence in the record, the statute of limitations under the PUFTA reaches back only to transfers occurring on or after February 1, 1994, citing 12 Pa.C.S. § 5109. Furthermore, the…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.