Skonieczny v. Cooper, 37 A.3d 1211

Skonieczny appeals a denial of her Petition to Strike Judgment of Non Pros entered against her.
This is a straddle case: action commenced by praecipe for writ of summons before Rule 1042.3; complaint filed after Rule became effective.
Rule 1042.3 requires a certificate of merit within 60 days after filing the complaint; non pros entered for failure to file.
Rule 1042.3 became effective January 27, 2003; the Order enacting the Rule stated it applies to actions commenced on or after that date.
Skonieczny commenced the action on September 13, 2001 by praecipe for writ of summons, thus before the Rule’s effective date; the prothonotary entered non pros on November 18, 2003.
The trial court concluded the Rule applied; the Superior Court disagreed, holding the Rule did not apply to actions commenced before January 27, 2003; judgment void; case remanded toward strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 1042.3 applies to actions commenced before its effective date.	Skonieczny argues pre-2003 commencement excludes Rule 1042.3.	Defendants contend Rule 1042.3 applies to all actions filed after its effective date.	Rule 1042.3 does not apply; action commenced before effective date is not governed by the Rule.
Whether the action’s timing violates Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as applied to Skonieczny’s case.	Constitutional challenge to applying new Rule to pre-2003 actions.	Rule applies constitutionally to post-enactment claims only.	Constitutional issue unnecessary to decide given Rule inapplicability.

Ruehl v. Maxwell Steel Co., Inc., 474 A.2d 1162 (Pa. Super. 1984) (unauthorized entry renders judgment void)
Warren v. Folk, 886 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Rule 1042.3 applicable to post-enactment actions; contextual analysis)
Parkway Corp. v. Edelstein, 861 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discusses timing and applicability of amended rules)