Rule Text
A. Except as provided in subdivision B of this rule, if after judgment the magisterial district judge finds that a party not designated in the complaint as an incapacitated person represented by a guardian was an incapacitated person, the magisterial district judge shall, unless the party’s guardian files consent in writing to the judgment, vacate the judgment and dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. Such a finding shall be based on the fact that the party had a guardian appointed pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511 by a court of competent jurisdiction.
B. A judgment in favor of a defendant shall not be vacated or set aside on the ground that the defendant was an incapacitated person not represented by a guardian.
Amendment history: The provisions of this Rule 815 amended March 13, 2015, effective April 12, 2015, 45 Pa.B. 1492. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (309572) and (370081).
Committee Notes
Except as provided in subdivision B, if after judgment the magisterial district judge finds that a party not designated in the complaint as an incapacitated party represented by a guardian was an incapacitated person as defined in Rule 801(3), the magisterial district judge must, unless the party’s guardian files consent in writing to the judgment, vacate the judgment and dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. If the guardian does file consent to the judgment, it should be attached to the record copy of the complaint form. It was thought best not to give the magisterial district judge the kind of discretion in this matter inherent in Pa.R.C.P. No. 2056(d) and in Hamilton v. Moore, 335 Pa. 433, 6 A.2d 787 (1939). Of course, if the incapacitated person was one of several plaintiffs or defendants affected by the judgment, the judgment will be vacated, and the proceedings dismissed, only as to the incapacitated person.
The exception in subdivision B forbids vacating or setting aside a judgment in favor of a defendant on the ground that a party was an incapacitated person not represented by a guardian. The reason for this exception is that the rules as to incapacitated persons as parties are for their protection and not for the protection of adverse parties. The word ‘‘defendant’’ as used here includes a plaintiff with respect to a cross-complaint of the defendant but does not include the defendant who files a cross-complaint.
