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.
A motion to open a decree of divorce or annulment may be made only within the period
limited by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (relating to modification of orders) and not thereafter.
The motion may lie where it is alleged that the decree was procured by intrinsic fraud
or that there is new evidence relating to the cause of action which will sustain the
attack upon its validity. A motion to vacate a decree or strike a judgment alleged
to be void because of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
or a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record must be made within five years
after entry of the final decree. Intrinsic fraud relates to a matter adjudicated by
the judgment, including perjury and false testimony, whereas extrinsic fraud relates
to matters collateral to the judgment which have the consequence of precluding a fair
hearing or presentation of one side of the case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Zehner, J. v. Zehner, E., 195 A.3d 574 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Zehner, J. v. Zehner, E., 195 A.3d 574 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3דat this constituted a fatal defect on the face of the record under the circumstances, which gave the trial court the authority to grant husband's petition for special relief (that he had filed nearly 6 years after the QDRO) and modify the faulty QDRO language to comport with the…”
Flowers v. Flowers, 612 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 3דAs the trial court has correctly explained, appellant’s motion to vacate the divorce decree is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332 which provides as follows: Opening or vacating decrees A motion to open a decree of divorce or annulment may be made only within the period limited by 42…”
Kozel, D. v. Kozel, D., 97 A.3d 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2דHusband filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, dated December 7, 2012, claiming that Wife’s action is barred by the statute of limitations of Section 3332 of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332, Opening or Vacating Decrees, which requires that any action claiming intrinsic fraud…”
Curran v. Curran, 667 A.2d 1155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2ד23 Pa.C.S. § 3332 addresses the issue of opening or vacating a decree of divorce or annulment.”
Lazaric v. Lazaric, 818 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2דSection 3332 of the Divorce Code describes as follows the circumstances under which the trial court may exercise its discretion and open or vacate a divorce decree: § 3332. Opening or vacating decrees A motion to open a decree of divorce or annulment may be made only within the…”
Brown v. Brown, 641 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2דSee 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332. After various amendments and answers to that petition, a hearing was held before the Honorable Alexander Endy.”
Holteen v. Holteen, 605 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “A similar provision now appears in the Consolidated Statutes at 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332.”
Jackson, L. v. Jackson, N, 166 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2דAs a predicate to our discussion that the trial court erred by allowing the wife to assert an untimely alimony claim without opening or vacating the divorce decree pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332, 3 we observed that the wife’s claim was waived because she failed to raise it in a…”
Nathan v. Nathan, 49 Pa. D. & C.4th 260 (2000). · cites it 6ד(2) The lawsuit is barred by the divorce decree by reason of 23 Pa.C.S. §3332,42 Pa.C.S. §5505, the doctrine of res judicata and because this court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case in the first instance.”
Maldonaldo, R. v. Maldonado, A., 2025 Pa. Super. 132 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 3דUpon review, Wife fails to assert extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or a fatal defect on the face of the record as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332. Accordingly, we affirm.”
Jackson, L. v. Jackson, N (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2דAs a predicate to our discussion that the trial court erred by allowing the wife to assert an untimely alimony claim without opening or vacating the divorce decree pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332,3 we observed that the wife’s claim ____________________________________________ 3 As…”
Tyler, R. v. Tyler, Z. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2ד23 Pa.C.S. § 3332 (emphasis added). Thus, Husband claims that because Wife’s petition for special relief was filed 14 years after the divorce decree was entered and 12½ years after the QDRO was issued, the court abused its discretion by considering the petition, i.”
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.