Hansel v. Hansel

407 A.2d 890, 268 Pa. Super. 181
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 26, 1979·No. 1081·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

WIEAND, Judge:

In this equity action the trial court concluded that an alleged cause of action was barred by laches and sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the complaint. Appellant contends that this was error. We agree and reverse.

Laches means undue delay. Under Pa.R.C.P.No. 1030, laches is an affirmative defense which must be set forth in a responsive pleading under the heading of “New Matter.” Sanctis v. Lagerbusch, 213 Pa.Super. 483, 249 A.2d 919 (1968). It cannot be raised by demurrer. Goodrich-Am-ram 2d, § 1030:1.3; Strollo v. Domenick, 3 D. & C.2d 715 (1955). See also: Suraci v. Ball, 160 Pa.Super. 349, 354, 51 A.2d 404, 407 (1947).

The trial court’s determination that appellant’s alleged cause of action was barred by laches, therefore, was premature and must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hansel v. Hansel, 407 A.2d 890, 268 Pa. Super. 181 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

407 A.2d 890 (Hansel v. Hansel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Minahan v. Burgess
37 Pa. D. & C.3d 637 (Somerset County Court of Common Pleas, 1982)
Hansel v. Hansel
446 A.2d 1294 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Hansel v. Hansel
409 A.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)