Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7501 (2026)

Attachment of property prior to judgment.

✓ 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

CHAPTER 75

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS

Subchapter

A. General Provisions

B. Interpleader Compacts

C. Declaratory Judgments

D. Reciprocal Tax Enforcement

Enactment. Chapter 75 was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from the date of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53.

SUBCHAPTER A

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.

7501. Attachment of property prior to judgment.

7502. Affidavit of noninvolvement.

§ 7501. Attachment of property prior to judgment.

(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) property may be attached prior to judgment in the manner and to the extent prescribed by general rule.

(b) Exemptions.--Any property exempt under Subchapter B of Chapter 81 (relating to exemptions from execution) from attachment or execution upon a judgment shall be exempt from attachment under this section.

(c) Effect of dissolution.--If an attachment is dissolved after sale of the property attached, such dissolution shall not have the effect of divesting any estate or interest acquired by virtue of such sale by a person not a party to the attachment.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

1978 Amendment. Act 53 added section 7501.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. Yablonsky, 867 A.2d 658 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 v. Yablonsky, 867 A.2d 658 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “Although the coordinator is charged with the responsibility of implementing the Plan it submitted to the City, if the Court were to declare the Plan invalid, the DCED could engage in a contract with another provider.”

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.