Judgments • Mortgage Foreclosure • Revival • Inactive Cases
Bank of New York v. Brown, PICS Case No. 14-0198 (C.P. Lawrence Jan. 23, 2014) Motto, P.J. (7 pages).
Mortgage foreclosure judgment is not subject to judgment lien revival statute. Dismissal for inactivity does not apply to case that has proceeded to final judgment. Motion denied.
In October 2007, a default judgment in mortgage foreclosure was entered against defendant. More than six years later, she moved to vacate the judgment because no action for revival of a judgment lien had been commenced within five years from its entry. Defendant also requested that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 230.2 (L.R. 1901) due to inactivity. The court denied the motion.
Section 5526 of the Judicial Code, governing revival of judgment liens, does not apply to in rem judgments in mortgage foreclosure, but to judgments for the payment of money. Unlike a money judgment, an in rem judgment in mortgage foreclosure does not operate as judgment lien on all real property of the debtor requiring a revival proceeding to be commenced within five years, and creates no personal liability. It is not affected by the law relating to the priority of liens; the lien relates back to the recording of the mortgage and derives its effectiveness from the mortgage document itself, not from the judgment.
Furthermore, Rule 230.2 (L.R. 1901) (“lack of activity”) does not apply to a case that has proceeded to final judgment.