A loan guaranty
executed under seal by Appellant is an “instrument in writing under seal”
subject to the 20-year limitation period set forth in 42 Pa. C.S 5529(b)(1) rather than the 4-years SOL
applicable to an "instrument" as defined in Article 3 of the UCC.
The Judicial Code
does not define the term instrument, and hence, the two statutes do not manifest
a direct inconsistency. More fundamentally, Article 3 is exclusively committed
to negotiable
instruments. It defines the term instrument for purposes of that division only,
effectively utilizing the term as a shorthand for negotiable instrument. There is nothing to suggest that Section 5501
was intended to import such construct into Chapter 55 of the Judicial Code,
particularly as the latter expressly refers to negotiable and nonnegotiable
bonds, notes and “other similar instrument[s].” Moreover, Article 3 of the UCC has no application
to this case, as the parties agree that the guaranty at the center of this controversy
is not a negotiable instrument. Accordingly, Appellant cannot prevail on his assertion
that the guaranty is not an instrument on the grounds that the UCC limits the term
to negotiable instruments. 
