Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529 (2026)

Twenty year limitation.

✓ 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

§ 5529. Twenty year limitation.

(a) Execution against personal property.--An execution against personal property must be issued within 20 years after the entry of the judgment upon which the execution is to be issued.

(b) Instruments under seal.--

(1) Notwithstanding section 5525(7) (relating to four year limitation), an action upon an instrument in writing under seal must be commenced within 20 years.

(2) (Deleted by amendment).

(Dec. 5, 1980, P.L.1104, No.189, eff. imd.; Dec. 20, 1982, P.L.1409, No.326, eff. 60 days; June 18, 1998, P.L.536, No.77, eff. imd.; June 25, 2018, P.L.348, No.46, eff. imd.)

2018 Amendment. Act 46 deleted subsec. (b)(2).

1982 Amendment. Section 403 of Act 326 provided that the amendments to Chapter 55 effected by Act 326 shall apply only to causes of action which accrue after the effective date of Act 326.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2000). · cites it 8× “On July 12, 1974, appellees Paul and Jeanne Shearer (Shearers) entered judgment by confession against appellants Charles and Elizabeth Naftzinger (Naftzingers) in the amount of $9,600.”

Deek Inv., L.P. v. Murray, F., 157 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “In that case, the sole issue before the Court was “whether the statute of limitations set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529 constitutes a defense in a proceeding to revive and continue the lien of a judgment.”

Twp. of Indiana v. Acquisitions & Mergers, Inc., 770 A.2d 364 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “The Township responds that both the Phase II and III Set Aside Agreements were executed under seal making them subject to the twenty (20) year statute of limitation set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(b)(1). 13 The Township contends that the record clearly demonstrates that these…”

Driscoll, R. v. Arena, J., 213 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “: I concur with the Majority's conclusion that the trial court erred in determining Appellees' petition to strike confessed judgments as untimely due to procedural missteps. 1 I respectfully dissent, however, from its determination that the documents constituted "sealed…”

Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 32 A.3d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Izett raises the following question for our review: “Whether the Trial Court erred in holding that a suit on [ ] Izett’s Guaranty, which forms the basis of Osprey’s claims, is governed by a twenty-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529, rather than…”

Joshua Hill, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Twp. Auth. (In Re Joshua Hill, Inc.), 199 B.R. 298 (E.D. Pa. 1996). · cites it 3× “Consequently, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529 does not apply. The potential application of 42 U.”

Packer Soc'y Hill Travel Agency, Inc. v. Presbyterian Univ. of Pennsylvania Med. Ctr., 635 A.2d 649 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(b). Then, finally, in 1982, the legislature adopted 42 Pa.”

Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 67 A.3d 749 (Pa. 2013). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(b)(1). The practice of affixing seals to writings originated at common law to give legal effect to promises and agreements.”

David Cutler Indus., Ltd. v. Bank of Am. (In re David Cutler Indus., Ltd.), 502 B.R. 58 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2013). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(b)(1). BOA disputes that the Note was under seal on the ground that the Note contains only a "corporate seal" not a separate "contractual seal.”

Morrissey v. Morrissey, 713 A.2d 614 (Pa. 1998). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529. 4 In this case, the Superior Court properly treated the arrearages under the Texas support order as periodic judgments in the manner of domestic arrearages.”

Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc., 681 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 5528, the twenty-year statute of limitations for instruments in writing under seal, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529, and the twenty-one year statute of limitations for possession of real property, 42 Pa.”

Leoni, E. v. Leoni, G., 153 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “The sole issue in Shearer was whether the statute of limitations under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(a), which provides that an execution against personal property must be issued within 20 years after the entry of the judgment upon which the execution is to be issued, can be used as a…”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529(a) — 6 cases

Deek Inv., L.P. v. Murray, F., 157 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “In that case, the sole issue before the Court was “whether the statute of limitations set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529 constitutes a defense in a proceeding to revive and continue the lien of a judgment.”

Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2000). “On July 12, 1974, appellees Paul and Jeanne Shearer (Shearers) entered judgment by confession against appellants Charles and Elizabeth Naftzinger (Naftzingers) in the amount of $9,600.”

Dawson, C. v. Sonju, S., 2025 Pa. Super. 175 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).

City of Philadelphia v. R.J. Silverberg & Assoc., P.C. & R.J. Silverberg (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529(b) — 5 cases

Equip. Fin., LLP v. Steven Hutchison, 487 F. App'x 25 (3rd Cir. 2012).

Hauser Holdings v. The Force Corp. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

Witsen, B. v. Witsen, M (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

First Nat'l Bank v. Keefer, 76 Pa. D. & C.4th 233 (2005).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529(b)(1) — 14 cases

Driscoll, R. v. Arena, J., 213 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “: I concur with the Majority's conclusion that the trial court erred in determining Appellees' petition to strike confessed judgments as untimely due to procedural missteps. 1 I respectfully dissent, however, from its determination that the documents constituted "sealed…”

Twp. of Indiana v. Acquisitions & Mergers, Inc., 770 A.2d 364 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “The Township responds that both the Phase II and III Set Aside Agreements were executed under seal making them subject to the twenty (20) year statute of limitation set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(b)(1). 13 The Township contends that the record clearly demonstrates that these…”

Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 32 A.3d 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “On appeal, Izett raises the following question for our review: “Whether the Trial Court erred in holding that a suit on [ ] Izett’s Guaranty, which forms the basis of Osprey’s claims, is governed by a twenty-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529, rather than…”

Joshua Hill, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Twp. Auth. (In Re Joshua Hill, Inc.), 199 B.R. 298 (E.D. Pa. 1996). “Consequently, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529 does not apply. The potential application of 42 U.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529(b)(2) — 1 case

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5529(b)(l) — 2 cases

Action Mgmt. Inc. v. Gross, 51 Pa. D. & C.4th 414 (2001).

Action Mgmt. Inc. v. Fratello, 46 Pa. D. & C.4th 139 (2000).

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.