Hansel v. Hansel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hansel v. Hansel

407 A.2d 890, 268 Pa. Super. 181

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 26, 1979

Docket1081

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 890 (Hansel v. Hansel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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