Some states have a procedural tool—known as a suit on an account, a suit for an account, or a suit on a sworn account—that limits the evidence and pleading requirements for a creditor to establish its right to recovery on certain types of accounts in a lawsuit to collect a debt. These procedural tools are designed to reduce the cost of a creditor’s recovery of a debt on such accounts, and usually apply to transactions in which there is a sale upon one side and a purchase upon the other, and title to personal property passes from one to the other, creating a debtor-creditor relationship by a general course of dealing.

A sworn account is not an independent cause of action or basis for recovery, but requires the defendant to file a sworn denial of the account to avoid having the court grant judgment against the defendant early in the litigation process (summary judgment).

In Pennsylvania, the concept of a suit on a sworn account is not as formally recognized as it is in some other states. Pennsylvania law does not have a specific statute or procedural rule that provides for a simplified process for creditors to recover debts through a suit on a sworn account. Instead, creditors seeking to collect debts typically file a civil lawsuit and must follow the standard rules of civil procedure. These rules require the creditor to prove the existence and amount of the debt, and the debtor has the opportunity to contest the debt through the litigation process. If a creditor has a written contract or agreement, they may be able to seek a summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. However, unlike in states with specific procedures for sworn accounts, Pennsylvania debt collection lawsuits do not generally allow creditors to obtain a judgment solely based on a sworn statement of the account without providing the debtor an opportunity to dispute the claim.