Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530 (2026)
Twenty-one 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
§ 5530. Twenty-one year limitation.
(a) General rule.--The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within 21 years:
(1) Except as provided in section 5527.1 (relating to ten year limitation), an action for the possession of real property.
(2) An action for the payment of any ground rent, annuity or other charge upon real property, or any part or portion thereof. If this paragraph shall operate to bar any payment of such a rent, annuity or charge, the rent, annuity or charge to which the payment relates shall be extinguished and no further action may be commenced with respect to subsequent payments.
(3) (Deleted by amendment).
(b) Entry upon land.--No entry upon real property shall toll the running of the period of limitation specified in subsection (a)(1), unless a possessory action shall be commenced therefor within one year after entry. Such an entry and commencement of a possessory action, without recovery therein, shall not toll the running of such period of limitation in respect of another possessory action, unless such other possessory action is commenced within one year after the termination of the first.
(May 4, 2006, P.L.112, No.34, eff. 120 days; June 19, 2018, P.L.223, No.34, eff. one year)
2018 Amendment. Act 34 amended subsec. (a)(1).
2006 Amendment. Act 34 deleted subsec. (a)(3). Section 6(1) of Act 34 provided that Act 34 shall apply to all condemnations effected on or after the effective date of section 6. Section (6)(3) of Act 34 provided that the amendment of subsec. (a)(3) shall apply only to causes of action which accrue after the effective date of section 6.
Cross References. Section 5530 is referred to in section 5527.1 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall, 72 A.3d 685 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall, 72 A.3d 685 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “In this respect, Appellant argues that the statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530 rather than 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(3) applies to Robinson’s count demanding return of or payment for the 192,000 tons of coal that it left at Goodall’s washing plant.”
Stark v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 116 A.3d 760 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “ts made in the field, that [Landowners] owned property up to the center line of the unopened road at the time [Equitablejs gas line was installed;” (2) overruling the preliminary objection based on the statute of limitations “in that [Landowners’] cause of action is governed by…”
Glenn v. Shuey, 595 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “****** 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530. 4 . Glenn contends that the trial court’s order of September 26, 1989 was final, and consequently, the time period for filing an appeal began to run on that date.”
Croyle v. Dellape, 832 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). “¶ 28 In their fifth issue, the Dellapes argue that the Croyles’ action in ejectment was barred by the statute of limitations provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530, *476 which indicates that an action for possession of real property must commence within twenty-one years.”
Petsinger v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Off. of Vocational Rehab., 988 A.2d 748 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a) (Pennsylvania’s longest actual statute of limitations is 21 years for adverse possession and actions on ground rent).”
Williams v. Borough of Blakely, 25 A.3d 458 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “Absent findings of fact by the trial court, we also decline to address the Borough’s argument that Owner’s de facto taking claim is barred by the 21-year statute of limitations in former 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3) (governing inverse condemnation proceedings under the 1964 Eminent…”
Brennan v. Manchester Crossings, Inc., 708 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(1), supra note 3; Conneaut Lake, supra; Klos, supra.”
Carmichaels Mining Mach. Repair Co. v. Carmiehaels-Cumberland Jt. Sewer Auth., 490 A.2d 30 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). “586, as amended, 42 Pa. C. S. §5530 Note. It is inapplicable because Carmichaels’ *546 claim, which had accrued in 1975, was not barred under the six-year statute when the Judicial Code statute of limitations became effective in 1978.”
Com. Union Assurance Co. v. Pucci, 523 F. Supp. 1310 (W.D. Pa. 1981). “The critical issue, however, is whether or not the Puccis’ possession was hostile or adverse to the interests of the other devisees in the property.”
German v. City of Philadelphia, 683 A.2d 323 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). “Based on their contention that a taking clearly occurred, the Germans maintain that their action was timely because it was governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3), which provides a twenty-one year statute of limitations for proceedings “in inverse condemnation, if property has been…”
Kraiser v. Horsham Twp., 455 A.2d 782 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “In concluding that the appellant’s claim was barred by the lapse of time, the trial court relied on the six-year statute of limitations dictated by Section 5527(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §5527(4). The appellant, Kraiser, argues that the governing period of limitation…”
In Re Flowers, 734 A.2d 69 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999). “Regarding the Authority’s claim that Landowners’ Petition was time barred, the trial court held that the 21-year statute of limitations of Section 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3) was applicable to Landowners’ Petition because the Authority’s actions did not deprive Landowners of the…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530(a) — 4 cases
Petsinger v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Off. of Vocational Rehab., 988 A.2d 748 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a) (Pennsylvania’s longest actual statute of limitations is 21 years for adverse possession and actions on ground rent).”
Com. Union Assurance Co. v. Pucci, 523 F. Supp. 1310 (W.D. Pa. 1981). “The critical issue, however, is whether or not the Puccis’ possession was hostile or adverse to the interests of the other devisees in the property.”
Lando v. Urban Redevelopment Auth., 411 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
Carmichaels Mining Mach. Repair Co. v. Carmiehaels-Cumberland Jt. Sewer Auth., 490 A.2d 30 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). “586, as amended, 42 Pa. C. S. §5530 Note. It is inapplicable because Carmichaels’ *546 claim, which had accrued in 1975, was not barred under the six-year statute when the Judicial Code statute of limitations became effective in 1978.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530(a)(1) — 6 cases
Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall, 72 A.3d 685 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “In this respect, Appellant argues that the statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530 rather than 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(3) applies to Robinson’s count demanding return of or payment for the 192,000 tons of coal that it left at Goodall’s washing plant.”
Brennan v. Manchester Crossings, Inc., 708 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(1), supra note 3; Conneaut Lake, supra; Klos, supra.”
Glenn v. Shuey, 595 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “****** 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530. 4 . Glenn contends that the trial court’s order of September 26, 1989 was final, and consequently, the time period for filing an appeal began to run on that date.”
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
Hockman, K. v. Hursh, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530(a)(2) — 1 case
Meadow Run/Mountain Lake Park Ass'n v. Bantell, 985 A.2d 989 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530(a)(3) — 9 cases
Stark v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 116 A.3d 760 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “ts made in the field, that [Landowners] owned property up to the center line of the unopened road at the time [Equitablejs gas line was installed;” (2) overruling the preliminary objection based on the statute of limitations “in that [Landowners’] cause of action is governed by…”
Williams v. Borough of Blakely, 25 A.3d 458 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “Absent findings of fact by the trial court, we also decline to address the Borough’s argument that Owner’s de facto taking claim is barred by the 21-year statute of limitations in former 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3) (governing inverse condemnation proceedings under the 1964 Eminent…”
German v. City of Philadelphia, 683 A.2d 323 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). “Based on their contention that a taking clearly occurred, the Germans maintain that their action was timely because it was governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3), which provides a twenty-one year statute of limitations for proceedings “in inverse condemnation, if property has been…”
Kraiser v. Horsham Twp., 455 A.2d 782 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “In concluding that the appellant’s claim was barred by the lapse of time, the trial court relied on the six-year statute of limitations dictated by Section 5527(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §5527(4). The appellant, Kraiser, argues that the governing period of limitation…”
In Re Flowers, 734 A.2d 69 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999). “Regarding the Authority’s claim that Landowners’ Petition was time barred, the trial court held that the 21-year statute of limitations of Section 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530(a)(3) was applicable to Landowners’ Petition because the Authority’s actions did not deprive Landowners of the…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5530(a)(l) — 1 case
McClelland v. Cragle, 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 584 (1992).
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.