Hoopes, P. v. Hadley, S., 315 A.3d 844

Preston Hoopes obtained a money judgment against Stephen Hadley in 2007, resulting in a judgment lien on Hadley's real property.
The judgment was entered in Potter County and later transferred to Venango County, Pennsylvania.
In 2019, Hoopes filed a praecipe for a writ of revival of the judgment lien, more than five years after entry of the original judgment.
Hadley responded, asserting the attempt to revive the lien was barred by the five-year limitation under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5526(1) and raised estoppel and laches defenses.
The trial court granted Hoopes’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the writ of revival was not time-barred and that affirmative defenses like laches and estoppel were not cognizable in such proceedings.
Hadley appealed, claiming error regarding both the statute of limitations and the exclusion of his affirmative defenses.

Issue	Hadley’s Argument	Hoopes’s Argument	Held
Does the five-year statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5526(1) bar a writ of revival filed more than five years after entry of judgment?	Revival after 5 years is time-barred, extinguishing the judgment lien and judgment.	Late revival only causes loss of lien priority, not the judgment itself.	Statute does not bar revival; creditor only loses lien priority, not the underlying judgment.
Can a defendant raise affirmative defenses like laches and estoppel in a proceeding to revive a judgment lien?	2003 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure allow such defenses.	Defenses limited to: judgment does not exist, has been paid, or has been discharged.	Only existence, payment, or discharge are cognizable defenses; laches/estoppel not allowed.
Was the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings premature due to factual disputes?	Material factual disputes required discovery.	No material issues of fact; judgment appropriate as a matter of law.	Not preserved for appeal and meritless; judgment on pleadings was proper.
Did repeals and new rules affect the legal standard for reviving judgment liens?	Repeal of prior statute and new rules changed applicable defenses and standards.	Rules and caselaw (including Shearer) still govern, supporting limited defenses.	No substantive change; prior caselaw and rules remain controlling.

Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2000) (explains that untimely revival only affects lien priority, not the underlying judgment)
PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n v. Balsamo, 634 A.2d 645 (Pa. Super. 1993) (only cognizable defenses to writ of revival: judgment does not exist, is paid, or is discharged)
Shipley Fuels Marketing, LLC v. Medrow, 37 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2012) (restates same limits on cognizable defenses to writ of revival)