Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 6, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Compulsory Arbitration: What Good
Is It if Pennsylvania State and Local Rules
Exclude Low-Income Tenants from the
Appeals Process?
By Duane R. Ramseur

I. INTRODUCTION
Since its inception in 1951, compulsory arbitration has been
the method of choice in Pennsylvania to dispose of small claims
expeditiously, without draining the resources of trial courts.1
Local courts have adopted similar compulsory arbitration rules
which require arbitration of civil disputes originating in the minor
judiciary and the Court of Common Pleas before a dispute may be
heard in trial court before a county judge.2 Allegheny County, for
example, has adopted a similar rule that arbitration is compulsory
when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000,
irrespective of court costs and fees.3 Most judicial districts have
adopted compulsory arbitration rules which have proven to be
“successful in expediting the trial and disposition of cases.”4
A landlord/tenant dispute is one type of civil action that begins
in the minor judiciary and is then appealed to an arbitral tribunal,
except in counties that have local court rules to the contrary.
However, not all tenants, especially those who live in federal
subsidized housing or those who participate in the Housing Choice