§ 1772. Suspension for nonpayment of judgments.
(a) General rule.--The department, upon receipt of a certified copy of a judgment, shall suspend the
operating privilege of each person against whom the judgment was rendered except as
otherwise provided in this section and in section 1775 (relating to installment payment
of judgments).
(b) Nonsuspension with consent of judgment creditor.--If the judgment creditor consents in writing, in such form as the department may prescribe,
that the judgment debtor's operating privilege be retained or restored, the department
shall not suspend or shall restore until the consent is revoked in writing, notwithstanding
default in the payment of the judgment, or of any installment thereof prescribed in
section 1775, provided the judgment debtor furnishes proof of financial responsibility.
(c) Financial responsibility in effect at time of accident.--Any person whose operating privilege has been suspended, or is about to be suspended
or become subject to suspension, under this chapter shall be relieved from the effect
of the judgment as prescribed in this chapter if the person files evidence satisfactory
to the department that financial responsibility was in force and effect at the time
of the accident resulting in the judgment and is or should be available for the satisfaction
of the judgment. If insurance already obtained is not available because the insurance
company has gone into receivership or bankruptcy, the person shall only be required
to present to or file with the department proper evidence that an insurance policy
was in force and effect at the time of the accident.
Cross References. Section 1772 is referred to in sections 1553, 1554, 1556, 1783 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Adcock, 520 A.2d 118 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
Commonwealth v. Adcock, 520 A.2d 118 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 3× “A substantially similar provision is now found at 75 Pa. C. S. §1772. 1 The following facts are pertinent.”
Geiger v. Pennsylvania (In Re Geiger), 143 B.R. 30 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Geiger’s motor vehicle operating privileges pursuant to 75 Pa.Cons. StatAnn. § 1772(a) because of an unsatisfied civil judgment against her arising from a motor vehicle accident.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 892 A.2d 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Smith (Licensee) and rescinding the indefinite suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege imposed by DOT in conformity with the requirements of Section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772(a) (relating to non-payment of…”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Benner, 616 A.2d 181 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
“On January 31, 1990, pursuant to Section 1772 of Subchapter G of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772, 1 the Department notified Benner that his driving privileges were being suspended indefinitely until the judgment was…”
Commonwealth v. Bauserman, 535 A.2d 700 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“That 1985 petition is governed by 75 Pa. C. S. § 1772(c), effective October 1, 1984, which states: Any person whose operating privilege has been suspended .”
Paluske v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 875 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“ommonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the October 26, 2004, order of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), which granted Carl Paluske’s (Paluske) petition for appeal from DOT’s suspension of his…”
Franklin v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 39 A.3d 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Upon receiving notice of the unsatisfied judgment against Licensee, the Bureau issued a notice of suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege pursuant to section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1772(a). 3 Licensee timely appealed…”
H. Hoffman v. Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
“In addition, the Restoration Letter stated that Hoffman had failed to satisfy fines and costs owed to the Chester County Clerk of 1 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772 (relating to suspension for nonpayment of judgments).”
Vranka, S. v. Sampson, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772(a). -2- J-S01006-23 Sampson argued that since Vranka failed to take any actions to revive or pursue collection of her judgment for more than thirty- two … years[,] that she has for all practical purposes abandoned it.”
PennDOT v. Benner, 12 Pa. D. & C.4th 491 (1991).
· cites it 2× “Benner did not satisfy the judgment, and on January 31, 1990, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation suspended his driving privilege pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §1772. According to section 1772, when a person fails to satisfy a judgment…”
Stamatiou v. PennDOT, 30 Pa. D. & C.4th 274 (1996).
· cites it 2× “(75 Pa.C.S. §1772.) When the Department of Transportation received notification from the State of New Jersey that the petitioner had failed to satisfy a judgment in that state, the department implemented the foregoing statutory provision and notified petitioner that his driving…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1772(a) — 7 cases
Geiger v. Pennsylvania (In Re Geiger), 143 B.R. 30 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
“Geiger’s motor vehicle operating privileges pursuant to 75 Pa.Cons. StatAnn. § 1772(a) because of an unsatisfied civil judgment against her arising from a motor vehicle accident.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 892 A.2d 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“Smith (Licensee) and rescinding the indefinite suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege imposed by DOT in conformity with the requirements of Section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772(a) (relating to non-payment of…”
Paluske v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 875 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“ommonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the October 26, 2004, order of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), which granted Carl Paluske’s (Paluske) petition for appeal from DOT’s suspension of his…”
Franklin v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 39 A.3d 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“Upon receiving notice of the unsatisfied judgment against Licensee, the Bureau issued a notice of suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege pursuant to section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1772(a). 3 Licensee timely appealed…”
Vranka, S. v. Sampson, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772(a). -2- J-S01006-23 Sampson argued that since Vranka failed to take any actions to revive or pursue collection of her judgment for more than thirty- two … years[,] that she has for all practical purposes abandoned it.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1772(c) — 5 cases
Commonwealth v. Adcock, 520 A.2d 118 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“A substantially similar provision is now found at 75 Pa. C. S. §1772. 1 The following facts are pertinent.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 892 A.2d 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
“Smith (Licensee) and rescinding the indefinite suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege imposed by DOT in conformity with the requirements of Section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1772(a) (relating to non-payment of…”
Commonwealth v. Bauserman, 535 A.2d 700 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“That 1985 petition is governed by 75 Pa. C. S. § 1772(c), effective October 1, 1984, which states: Any person whose operating privilege has been suspended .”
Franklin v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 39 A.3d 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“Upon receiving notice of the unsatisfied judgment against Licensee, the Bureau issued a notice of suspension of Licensee’s operating privilege pursuant to section 1772(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1772(a). 3 Licensee timely appealed…”
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.