Question about a judgement not reporting on CRs

[Magdalen77]

Okay. I managed to get to query LexisNexis for judgements against me. I was just trying to make sure that the recent people who called me about my old repo weren't up to something.

I didn't find anything about that, but I did find an old judgement from magistrate's court on a landlord-tenant issue. It's from an apartment that I lived in with two roommates about 7-10 years ago. When we moved out the landlord wouldn't give us our security deposit back and in fact tried to charge us for replacing all of the appliances (refrigerator, stove, dishwasher). None of the stuff was broken, they were old when we moved in and we used them normally. We raised hell, threatened and argued and finally they gave us back about 1/2 of the security, around $550. Now, I see this judgement in the names of my two roommates and me for around $2000 from 2001. I wonder if they gave us back some of the money to shut us up and then turned around and did this.

So, what should I do? Should I let sleeping dogs lie?? Considering it's never shown up on any report or should I go to the magistrate and try and find out what's going on? I no longer have anything to do with these roommates. I really don't want to be the one that asks and consequently the one that ends up paying the whole mess. I suspect that even if I managed to find my two former roommates (they're still living together as far as I know), neither of them would be able to pay. Both of them were careless with money and had hard times keeping steady jobs (one of the reasons we don't live together anymore).

I think the reason this hasn't shown up on my CR is that my name is last on the judgement and they aren't using my full name (no middle name). While my name isn't common there's at least a one or two others in PA and maybe eight or ten nationwide.

[flacorps]

Big & Corporate landlord: figure out some affirmative action to take if the judgment hasn't reached the SOL for judgments and/or the judgment could still be renewed.

Small or unincorporated landlord: let the sleeping dog lie.

[Magdalen77]

Big & Corporate landlord: figure out some affirmative action to take if the judgment hasn't reached the SOL for judgments and/or the judgment could still be renewed.

Small or unincorporated landlord: let the sleeping dog lie.

Okay I was looking up that very thing. Judgements in PA are only enforceable for 5 years, but can be renewed. If it hasn't been renewed yet can it be, even 3 years after expiration? That I need to find out. It's a big corporate landlord, not a small local guy.

[Magdalen77]

Oh, yippee!!! While I was replying to you I started looking up about executing and renewing a judgment and I found the reference from the horse's mouth. Or at least the Pa. Code.

Rule 402. Request for Order of Execution. Entry of Judgment in Court of Common Pleas.

A. Execution of a judgment for the payment of money rendered by a magisterial district judge may be ordered by a magisterial district judge in whose office the judgment was rendered or entered, provided the plaintiff files in that office

(1) not before the expiration of 30 days from the date the judgment is entered by the magisterial district judge, and

(2) within five years of that date,

a request for an order of execution.

B. The request form shall be attached to the order, return and other matters required by these rules.

C. The plaintiff may enter the judgment, for the purpose of requesting an order of execution thereon, in an office of a magisterial district judge other than that in which it was rendered only if levy is to be made outside the county in which the judgment was rendered and the office in which the judgment is entered for execution is that of the magisterial district judge whose magisterial district is situated in the county in which levy is to be made.

The plaintiff may enter the judgment in such other office by filing therein a copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment, certifed to be a true copy by the magisterial district judge in whose existing office the judgment was rendered or by any other official custodian of the record.

D. (1) The plaintiff may enter the judgment in the court of common pleas in any county. When so entered, the indexing, revival and execution of the judgment shall be in accordance with procedures applicable in the court of common pleas.

(2) The judgment may be entered in the court of common pleas by filing with the prothonotary a copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment, certified to be a true copy by the magisterial district judge in whose office the judgment was rendered or by any other official custodian of the record.

(3) The judgment may be entered in the court of common pleas after 30 days from the date the judgment is entered by the magisterial district judge. The judgment may not be entered in the court of common pleas after five years from the date the judgment is entered by the magisterial district judge.

(4) Except as provided in subparagraph D(5) of this rule, once the judgment is entered in the court of common pleas all further process must come from the court of common pleas and no further process may be issued by the magisterial district judge.

(5) The magisterial district judge shall enter satisfaction on the docket of the magisterial district court proceedings upon the filing by any party in interest of a certified copy of the docket entries of the court of common pleas showing the judgment and satisfaction have been entered in the court of common pleas.

Official Note

Under subdivision A of this rule, the execution proceedings are commenced by requesting an ‘‘order of execution.’’ The request may not be filed before the expiration of 30 days after the date the judgment is entered by the magisterial district judge. This will give the defendant an opportunity to obtain a supersedeas within the appeal period. The request must be filed within five years of the date the judgment is entered by the magisterial district judge. No provision has been made for revival of a judgment in magisterial district court proceedings.

Subdivision C provides for entering the judgment, for the purpose of requesting an order of execution, in an office of a magisterial district judge other than that in which the judgment was rendered when levy is to be made outside the county in which the judgment was rendered. Compare Pa. R.C.P. No. 3002.

As to subdivision D, see Section 1516 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 1516. The 30 day limitation in the rule appears to be required by this Section. Certification by the magisterial dis-trict judge should not be done before the expiration of 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment. The only method available to renew a judgment would be to record the judgment in the Prothonotary’s office prior to the expiration of the five-year period and then follow the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure for the revival of judgments. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 3025 et seq. Also, subdivision D makes clear that when the judgment is entered in the court of common pleas, all further process shall come from the court of common pleas and that no further process shall be issued by the magisterial district judge except that the magisterial district judge shall enter on the magisterial district court docket proof of satisfaction of a judgment that had been entered in the court of common pleas and subsequently satisfied in that court. This exception is necessary so that procedures exist for entering satisfaction of all judgments with the magisterial district court, regardless of whether the judgment has been certified to and satisfied in the court of common pleas.

Source

The provisions of this Rule 402 amended through April 25, 1979, effective May 25, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 1499; amended March 27, 1992, effective 90 days from the date on which the Order is signed, 22 Pa.B. 1893 and 1900; amended December 15, 2000, effective January 1, 2001, 30 Pa.B. 6882; amended April 5, 2002, effective January 1, 2003, 32 Pa.B. 2199. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (272485) to (272486) and (281653).

Looks like they screwed up by not getting the judgement removed to the court of common pleas and registered with the prothonotary. Anyway, here it is for people's reference and illumination.