Opinion ID: 1521596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reason for the Delay Element

Text: As we noted above, case law requires us to determine whether a compelling reason for the delay was advanced. Nowhere in the record or briefs does appellant offer a compelling reason for the lengthy hiatus in this case. Appellant's only explanation is by way of argument in brief wherein he states that the delay was by joint agreement of the parties. Appellant's brief at 13. Appellant's argument is belief, however, by the record; the uncontested documentary evidence demonstrates that the only joint agreement to delay the case was made in 1980 when counsel for appellee agreed to two twenty-day time extensions. Appellant fails to offer a compelling reason for the other fifty-seven months' delay before filing the complaint. Appellant continues in this regard by summarily arguing that a non pros may not be entered where the delay was caused by counsel's excusable neglect. See, generally, Moore, 321 Pa.Super. at 229, 467 A.2d at 1338-1339 (neglect of counsel may be a compelling reason for delay if counsel offers a reasonable explanation for the neglect). Appellant's counsel does not pursue this argument and fails to offer a reasonable explanation for any conceivable mistake, oversight, or neglect on his part. We refuse to speculate as to either the cause or the reason for the delay.