Driscoll
v. Arena – Pa. Super. – February 12, 2018 (2-1)
Held:
A contract which does not have “seal” or “L.S.” or other language to indicate
that it was signed under seal is subject to the regular contract statute of
limitation of four (4) years, 42 Pa. C.S. 55245(a)(8) and not the
extended 20-years SOL for contracts under seal, 42 Pa. C.S. 55245(b)(1).
That
result is not changed by the inclusion of a paragraph entitled “waiver” which
includes the following language: ““Borrower intends this to be a sealed
instrument and to be legally bound thereby.”
The
court recognized that contracts under seal are a “vestige of the past.”
Ed.
note:
What the court did not say is that the seal practice is a trap for all but the
very most sophisticated parties, and that virtually no one has the slightest
idea of what “seal” means or does. This seems like something that
could be challenged in an appropriate case. See, e.g., Investors
Loan Corp.v. Perez, 74 D & C 2d149 (C.P.Adams 1975).
======================
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis,
Google Scholar)
