Worked example: Closing Cost in Pennsylvania

5 min read

Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Example inputs

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Closing Cost calculator.

This worked example shows how DocketMath estimates a closing cost timeline in Pennsylvania (US-PA) and how the output can change when you adjust key inputs. It uses jurisdiction-aware rules based on Pennsylvania’s general statute of limitations (SOL) period.

Note: This is a worked example focused on how the calculator’s jurisdiction-aware assumptions apply. It’s not legal advice and doesn’t account for claim-specific rules, contractual terms, or special tolling situations.

Scenario setup (inputs used by DocketMath)

Assume a borrower is reviewing closing documents for a Pennsylvania real estate transaction and wants a structured estimate tied to a 2-year general SOL period.

Input	Example value (US-PA)	Why it matters
Transaction/closing date	2024-03-15	The date anchors the SOL-based time window used in the estimate
Estimated discovery/awareness date	2024-06-01	Used to model when a potential issue may be considered “known” for timing purposes
Claim/filing target date (for calculation)	2026-02-20	Used to assess whether the target falls within the computed window
Jurisdiction	US-PA	Selects Pennsylvania default timing rules
SOL rule applied	General/default SOL: 2 years	Pennsylvania’s general SOL is the starting point when no claim-type-specific rule is found

Pennsylvania SOL rule used (default)

For this example, DocketMath uses Pennsylvania’s general/default SOL period of 2 years, citing:

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5552 (general rule; default period is used here)

Warning: In Pennsylvania, some causes of action have different or claim-type-specific SOL periods. In this example, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so the calculator uses the general/default 2-year period as the rule of thumb.

Example run

Below is the step-by-step “what the calculator is doing” walkthrough for the example inputs above.

Run the Closing Cost calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step 1: Anchor the analysis dates

Closing date: 2024-03-15
Estimated awareness date: 2024-06-01

Even when a transaction occurs on one date, timing estimates often use an awareness/discovery date to model when a putative claim might begin running. In DocketMath, that awareness date is what drives the SOL-based window in this example.

Step 2: Apply the jurisdiction-aware default SOL period

Pennsylvania general/default SOL period used: 2 years
Statutory reference: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5552
No claim-type-specific sub-rule was detected, so the default 2-year period is applied.

Step 3: Compute the SOL window ending point

Using an awareness date of 2024-06-01 and a 2-year general SOL:

Estimated SOL deadline = 2026-06-01

Step 4: Compare a target date to the deadline

Target/filer date in this example: 2026-02-20
Deadline: 2026-06-01

Since 2026-02-20 is earlier than 2026-06-01, the target date falls within the estimated 2-year window under the general/default Pennsylvania rule.

What DocketMath outputs (conceptually)

When you run the closing-cost tool for US-PA, DocketMath produces an estimate grounded in the selected timing rule. For the purpose of this worked example, interpret the output as a timeline feasibility check:

Estimated SOL window: 2024-06-01 through 2026-06-01
Target date status: likely within the general/default SOL window

You can run the calculation directly here: /tools/closing-cost

Sensitivity check

Now adjust one input at a time to see how sensitive the result is to changes in the awareness date and the target date. This is where jurisdiction-aware defaults tend to show their impact.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Sensitivity A: Awareness date shifts later by 30 days

Keep everything the same except move awareness from 2024-06-01 to 2024-07-01.

New awareness date: 2024-07-01
SOL deadline with 2-year rule: 2026-07-01
Target date stays: 2026-02-20

Result: The target date remains within the window, and the deadline is pushed out by 30 days.

Sensitivity B: Awareness date shifts earlier by 30 days

Change awareness from 2024-06-01 to 2024-05-02 (approximately 30 days earlier).

New awareness date: 2024-05-02
SOL deadline: 2026-05-02
Target date: 2026-02-20

Result: Still within the window, but the margin tightens. The deadline moves earlier by roughly 30 days.

Sensitivity C: Target date moves forward close to the deadline

Keep awareness at 2024-06-01. Change the target date from 2026-02-20 to 2026-06-10.

Deadline: 2026-06-01
New target date: 2026-06-10

Result: This moves the target date past the computed deadline by about 9 days, flipping the timing status from “within” to “likely outside” under the default 2-year assumption.

Sensitivity D: Swap the closing date (without changing awareness)

Change the closing date from 2024-03-15 to 2024-04-15, but keep awareness at 2024-06-01.

Result: Under a timing model that keys off awareness/discovery, the SOL deadline remains the same because the awareness date didn’t change. This helps explain why two transactions can have different closing dates but still align on timing if awareness is modeled consistently.