§ 5532. Absence or concealment.
(a) General rule.--If, when a cause of action accrues against a person, he is without this Commonwealth,
the time within which the action or proceeding must be commenced shall be computed
from the time he comes into or returns to this Commonwealth. If, after a cause of
action has accrued against a person, he departs from this Commonwealth and remains
continuously absent therefrom for four months or more, or he resides within this Commonwealth
under a false name which is unknown to the person entitled to commence the action
or proceeding, the time of his absence or residence within this Commonwealth under
such a false name is not a part of the time within which the action or proceeding
must be commenced.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply in any of the following cases:
(1) While there is in force a designation, voluntary or involuntary, made pursuant to
law, of a person to whom process may be delivered within this Commonwealth with the
same effect as if served personally within this Commonwealth.
(2) While a foreign corporation has one or more officers or other persons in this Commonwealth
on whom process against such corporation may be served.
(3) While jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be obtained without personal
delivery of process to him within this Commonwealth.
(c) Fraudulent concealment.--In the case of a civil action or proceeding against the trustee of an express or implied
trust, the time within which such an action or proceeding by or on behalf of a beneficiary
on account of fraud must be commenced shall be computed from the discovery of the
fraud, or when, by reasonable diligence, the person defrauded might have discovered
the fraud. This subsection shall not prevent a bona fide purchaser for value from
pleading the applicable statute of limitations.
Notes of Decisions
Aquilino v. Philadelphia Catholic Archdiocese, 884 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(a). Aquilino also asserted that the Archdiocese/Parish was responsible for transferring Father D’Ono-frio from parish to parish and, eventually, to Peru.”
Burger v. Blair Med. Assocs., Inc., 964 A.2d 374 (Pa. 2009).
“That question raises policy issues that are not necessary to the resolution of this case and would be better addressed in cases in which they are raised directly.”
Wolk v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
“Pennsylvania’s long arm statute, 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5532(b), authorizes Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the constitutional limit of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
Appel v. Kaufman, 728 F. Supp. 2d 684 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
“” This rule has been codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(c), which provides that [i]n the case of a civil action or proceeding against the trustee of an express or implied trust, the time within which such an action or proceeding by or on behalf of a beneficiary on account of fraud…”
Bywaters v. Bywaters, 721 F. Supp. 84 (E.D. Pa. 1989).
“Discussion Because plaintiff Julia knew the defendant’s whereabouts in New Jersey, defendant contends that the tolling provision of 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 5532(a), relied upon by Judge Scirica in his earlier decision, does not apply.”
Biela, D. v. Carney Plumbing (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“-9- J-S38032-23 42 Pa.C.S. § 5532. “An improvement includes everything that permanently enhances the value of real property[]” and has been defined as: [A] valuable addition made to property (usually real estate) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere…”
Jones, C. v. Jones, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“Furthermore, we note Wife’s claim seems to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(c). “The doctrine is based on a theory of estoppel, and provides that the defendant may not invoke the statute of limitations, if through fraud or concealment,…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5532(1) — 1 case
Burger v. Blair Med. Assocs., Inc., 964 A.2d 374 (Pa. 2009).
“That question raises policy issues that are not necessary to the resolution of this case and would be better addressed in cases in which they are raised directly.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5532(a) — 2 cases
Aquilino v. Philadelphia Catholic Archdiocese, 884 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
“42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(a). Aquilino also asserted that the Archdiocese/Parish was responsible for transferring Father D’Ono-frio from parish to parish and, eventually, to Peru.”
Bywaters v. Bywaters, 721 F. Supp. 84 (E.D. Pa. 1989).
“Discussion Because plaintiff Julia knew the defendant’s whereabouts in New Jersey, defendant contends that the tolling provision of 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 5532(a), relied upon by Judge Scirica in his earlier decision, does not apply.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5532(b) — 1 case
Wolk v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
“Pennsylvania’s long arm statute, 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5532(b), authorizes Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the constitutional limit of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5532(c) — 2 cases
Appel v. Kaufman, 728 F. Supp. 2d 684 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
“” This rule has been codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(c), which provides that [i]n the case of a civil action or proceeding against the trustee of an express or implied trust, the time within which such an action or proceeding by or on behalf of a beneficiary on account of fraud…”
Jones, C. v. Jones, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“Furthermore, we note Wife’s claim seems to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5532(c). “The doctrine is based on a theory of estoppel, and provides that the defendant may not invoke the statute of limitations, if through fraud or concealment,…”
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.