Rule 1901.7.Decision. Post-trial Relief.
Adopted March 9, 1977 · Last amended February 10, 2015 · Last verified June 30, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1901.7
Plain-English Summary
This rule shapes the court's ruling in a PFA case. The decision may consist of only general findings of abuse but must dispose of all claims for relief, and the final order follows the form the rules provide. No motion for post-trial relief is allowed, which keeps the protective order in force and routes review to appeal, though a party may still ask the court to reconsider under Rule 1930.2.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a PFA order be challenged by a post-trial motion?
No. The rule bars post-trial motions; review is by appeal.
Official Note
Official Note: The procedure relating to Motions for Reconsideration is set forth in Rule 1930.2.
Explanatory Comment. —1977 New Rules 1901, et seq. promulgated March 9, 1977 and effective 15 days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin implement the Protection From Abuse Act No. 218 of 1976 which became effective December 6, 1976. The Act introduces a new civil remedy authorizing protective orders to bring about cessation of abuse of the plaintiff or minor children, which relief includes, inter alia, exclusion of the errant spouse from the household, the award of temporary custody and visitation rights with regard to minor children and support. The Act also authorizes temporary ex parte orders when the exigency of the situation requires immediate relief before process can be served on a defendant. Jurisdiction is also conferred on the magisterial district judges over the weekend if and when a judge of the court of common pleas is not available, but any temporary order of a magisterial district judge expires at the resumption of business of the common pleas court at the beginning of the week or within seventy-two (72) hours, whichever occurs first. The magisterial district judge is required immediately to certify his or her order to the common pleas court and the certification under the Act has the effect of commencing a proceeding in the common pleas court and invoking the other provisions of the Act. Section 9 of the Act provides that all proceedings shall be in accordance with Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies. Explanatory Comment—2005 Act 207-2004 amended numerous titles of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes changing the title of ‘‘district justice’’ to ‘‘magisterial district judge.’’ The amendments to Rule 1901.7’s Explanatory Comment—1977 reflect the change in title, make the comment gender-neutral and delete outdated material.
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 1901.7 adopted March 9, 1977, effective April 10, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 839; amended October 19, 1983, effective January 1, 1984, 13 Pa.B. 3629; amended March 30, 1994, effective July 1, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 1941; amended March 9, 1998, effective July 1, 1998, 28 Pa.B. 1391; amended May 9, 2005, effective immediately, 35 Pa.B. 2994; amended May 2, 2006, effective May 9, 2006, 36 Pa.B. 2369; amended February 10, 2015, effective in 30 days on March 12, 2015, 45 Pa.B. 1250. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (368049).