Rule 815. Judgment—Unrepresented Incompetent.

 A. Except as provided in subdivision B of this rule, if after judgment the magisterial district judge finds that a party not designated in the complaint as an incompetent represented by his guadian was an incompetent, the magisterial district judge shall, unless the party’s guardian files his consent in writing to the judgment, vacate the judgment and dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. Such a finding shall be based on the fact that the party had a guardian appointed because of the party’s incompetency by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 B. A judgment in favor of a defendant shall not be vacated or set aside on the ground that he was an incompetent not represented by his guardian.

   Official Note

   Except as provided in subdivision B, if after judgment the magisterial district judge finds that a party not designated in the complaint as an incompetent represented by his guardian was an incompetent as defined in Rule 801(2), the magisterial district judge must, unless the party’s guardian files his consent in writing to the judgment, vacate the judgment and dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. If the guardian does file his consent to the judgment, it should be attached to the record copy of the complaint form. It was thought best not to give the magisterial district judge the kind of discretion in this matter inherent in Pa. R.C.P. No. 2056(d) and in Hamilton v. Moore, 335 Pa. 433, 6 A.2d 787 (1939). Of course, if the party as to whom the finding of incompetency is made was one of several plaintiffs or defendants affected by the judgment, the judgment will be vacated, and the proceedings dismissed, only as to him.

   The exception is subdivision B forbids vacating or setting aside a judgment in favor of a defendant on the ground that he was an incompetent not represented by his guardian. The reason for this exception is that the rules as to incompetents as parties are for their protection and not for the protection of adverse parties. The word ‘‘defendant’’ as used here includes a plaintiff with respect to a cross-complaint of the defendant but does not include the defendant with respect to his cross-complaint.