Glover, M. v. Udren Law Offices (opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 2014 PA Super 82 MARY E. GLOVER, I NDI VI DUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SI MI LARLY SI TUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS I N PENNSYLVANI A, : : : : : Appellant : : v. : : UDREN LAW OFFI CES, P.C., A NEW : JERSEY DEBT COLLECTOR, : : Appellee : I N THE SUPERI OR COURT OF PENNSYLVANI A No. 938 WDA 2012 Appeal from t he Order June 13, 2012, Court of Com m on Pleas, Allegheny Count y, Civil Division at No. GD 11- 018015 EDELLA JOHNSON ( A/ K/ A EDELLA ROBI NSON, A/ K/ A EDELLA ROBI NSON JOHNSON) , ERI C JOHNSON, I NDI VI DUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SI MI LARLY SI TUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS I N PENNSYLVANI A, Appellant s v. PHELAN HALLI NAN & SCHMI EG, LLP, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I N THE SUPERI OR COURT OF PENNSYLVANI A No. 1131 WDA 2012 Appeal from t he Order ent ered July 17, 2012, Court of Com m on Pleas, Allegheny Count y, Civil Division at No. GD 12- 005395 BEFORE: DONOHUE* , SHOGAN and WECHT, JJ. * Writ ing of t he m aj orit y opinion was reassigned t o t his aut hor on March 17, 2014. J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 OPI NI ON BY DONOHUE, J.: FI LED: April 23, 2014 I n t hese appeals, Mary E. Glover, individually and on behalf of a sim ilarly sit uat ed class ( Glover ) , and EdElla and Eric Johnson, individually and on behalf of a sim ilarly sit uat ed class ( t he Johnsons ) , appeal from t he orders of court sust aining prelim inary obj ect ions filed by Udren Law Offices, P.C. ( Udren ) and Phelan Hallinan & Schm ieg, LLP ( Phelan ) and dism issing t he appellant s com plaint s wit h prej udice. We affirm . At t he out set , we explain our decision t o address t hese appeals t oget her. The claim s raised by Glover and Johnson are based on sim ilar fact s, raise claim s alleging t he sam e violat ions of t he sam e laws, and nam e t he law firm t hat act ed as foreclosure counsel for t heir m ort gagee as defendant s. Furt herm ore, and m ore t o t he point , t he Johnsons agreed in t he t rial court t hat t his Court s resolut ion of t he issues raised in Glover s case would cont rol t he out com e of t heir case. Se e Trial Court Order, 7/ 16/ 12 ( sust aining Phelan s prelim inary obj ect ions, dism issing t he Johnsons com plaint and st at ing t hat part ies agree t hat Glove r v. Udr e n [ ] governs t his lit igat ion. ) ; Trial Court Order, 9/ 4/ 12 ( [ B] ot h part ies agree t hat t his case is governed by m y [ m ] em orandum and [ o] rder dat ed June 13, 2012 ent ered in Glove r v. [ Udr e n] ... The Glove r ruling is on appeal. ) . - 2 - For J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 t hese reasons, we have elect ed t o address t hese appeal t oget her and we address only t he claim s raised by Glover. 1 We begin wit h a sum m ary of t he relevant fact ual hist ory, as set fort h by t he t rial court : On August 2, 2002, [ Glover] ent ered int o a m ort gage t ransact ion wit h Washingt on Mut ual Bank ( WaMu ) . On August 18, 2005, [ Glover s] m ort gage was in default and she was t old she owed $551.08. On Decem ber 1, 2005, [ Glover] and WaMu ent ered int o a forbearance agreem ent . The agreem ent st at ed t hat on April 1, 2006, we will reevaluat e your applicat ion for assist ance. I f you do not have evidence of full t im e em ploym ent at t hat t im e, we will have t o deny your applicat ion[ .] On March 14, 2006, WaMu denied a loan workout . On April 10, 2006[ ,] [ Udren] , as counsel for WaMu filed a Com plaint in Mort gage Foreclosure. The foreclosure com plaint in paragraph [ six] asked for Court Cost s ( ant icipat ed, excluding Sheriff s Sale cost s) of $280.00 and At t orneys Fees ( ant icipat ed and act ual t o 5% of principal) in t he am ount of $1,250.00. On June 7, 2006, WaMu flip- flopped and offered [ Glover] a Loan Modificat ion Agreem ent under which, beginning August 1, 2006, [ Glover] would begin t o again m ake paym ent s but in an increased am ount . [ According t o t he allegat ions pled in Glover s com plaint , in t he June 7, 2006 let t er, WaMu added $2,237.73 t o Glover s principal balance and charged her $806.45 for delinquent int erest and $1,431.19 for escrow advance/ set up. WaMu also indicat ed t hat Glover owed $3,696 for foreclosure 1 Addit ionally, alt hough Glover is proceeding in her own right and on behalf of sim ilarly sit uat ed individuals, for clarit y and ease of reference we will refer only t o Glover. - 3 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 fees and cost s, and dem anded paym ent of t he foreclosure fees and cost s. Glover did not rem it t his am ount , but began m aking paym ent s t o WaMu.] The loan was t ransferred t o Wells Fargo on Decem ber 1, 2006. On January 4, 2008, [ Glover] and Wells Fargo ent ered int o a loan m odificat ion/ rest ruct ure and it was m ut ually agreed t hat a cont ribut ion of $1,492.39 would be required, which will be applied t oward t he delinquency. This Loan Modificat ion Agreem ent st at es t hat t he unpaid principal balance as of February 4, 2008 is $9,508.36 and t he m odified principal balance is $12,152.02. ¦ . [ Glover] m ade paym ent s in accordance wit h t he loan m odificat ion agreem ent . Trial Court Opinion, 6/ 13/ 12, at 1- 3 ( cit at ion t o Glover s com plaint om it t ed) . On June 9, 2008, Glover com m enced t his act ion in st at e court against WaMu, Wells Fargo, and Udren. She alleged violat ions of t he Loan I nt erest and Prot ect ion Act ( Act 6 ) , 2 41 P.S. § 101 et seq.; t he Uniform Trade 2 This st at ut e is com m only referred t o as Act 6 as it was enact ed as t he Act of January 30, 1974 ( P.L.13, No.6) . Act 6 has been am ended various t im es, m ost recent ly in 2008. S.B. 483, 192d Gen. Assem b., Reg. Sess. ( Pa. 2008) . The pream ble t o Act 6 describes it as follows: An Act regulat ing agreem ent s for t he loan or use of m oney; est ablishing a m axim um lawful int erest rat e in t he Com m onwealt h; providing for a legal rat e of int erest ; det ailing except ions t o t he m axim um lawful int erest rat e for resident ial m ort gages and for any loans in t he principal am ount of m ore t han fift y t housand dollars and federally insured or guarant eed loans and unsecured, uncollat eralized loans in excess of t hirt y- five t housand dollars and business loans in excess of t en t housand dollars; providing prot ect ions t o debt ors t o whom loans are m ade including t he - 4 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 Pract ices and Consum er Prot ect ion Law ( UTPCPL ) , 73 P.S. § 201- 1, et seq.; t he Fair Credit Ext ension Uniform it y Act ( FCEUA ) , 73 P.S. § 2270.1, et seq.; and t he Fair Debt Collect ion Pract ices Act ( FDCPA ) , 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. The case was rem oved t o t he West ern Dist rict of Pennsylvania, where t he part ies agreed t o t he dism issal of Glover s claim s under Act 6 and t he UTPCPL wit hout prej udice t o her right t o pursue t hem in st at e court . On August 31, 2011, Glover raised t hese st at ut ory claim s in a com plaint filed in t he Court of Com m on Pleas of Allegheny Count y. Specifically, Count s I I V of t he com plaint alleged violat ion of sect ion 406 of Act 6 and Count s V- I X alleged violat ions of t he UTPCPL. 8/ 31/ 11, at 17- 27. Se e Com plaint , Udren filed prelim inary obj ect ions in response t heret o, dem urring as t o each count raised in t he com plaint . Prelim inary Obj ect ions, provision for disclosure of fact s relevant t o t he m aking of resident ial m ort gages, providing for not ice of int ent ion t o foreclose and est ablishm ent of a right t o cure default s on resident ial m ort gage obligat ions, provision for t he paym ent of at t orney's fees wit h regard t o resident ial m ort gage obligat ions and providing for cert ain int erest rat es by banks and bank and t rust com panies; clarifying t he subst ant ive law on t he filing of an execut ion on a confessed j udgm ent ; prohibit ing waiver of provisions of t his act , specifying powers and dut ies of t he secret ary of banking, and est ablishing rem edies and providing penalt ies for violat ions of t his act . Act of Jan. 30, 1974, P.L. 13, No. 6. - 5 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 10/ 21/ 11, at 3- 9. The t rial court heard argum ent on Udren s prelim inary obj ect ions on February 2, 2012 and on June 13, 2012, it sust ained t he prelim inary obj ect ions and dism issed Glover s com plaint wit h prej udice. 3 Wit h t hat background, we t urn our at t ent ion t o t he issues raised on appeal: 4 1. Did [ Glover] ( a hom eowner) plead viable claim s against [ Udren] ( a debt collect or) , under Act 6? 2. Did [ Glover] plead viable claim s against [ Udren] under t he UTPCPL? Glover s Brief at 2. Alt hough not explicit in Glover s st at em ent of quest ions, we are m indful t hat she is challenging t he t rial court s ruling on Udren s prelim inary obj ect ions. When reviewing a challenge t o an order sust aining prelim inary obj ect ions, we recognize t hat [ t ] he im pet us of our inquiry is t o det erm ine t he legal sufficiency of t he com plaint and whet her t he pleading would perm it recovery if ult im at ely proven. This Court will reverse t he t rial court 's decision regarding prelim inary obj ect ions only where t here has been an error of law or abuse of discret ion. When sust aining t he t rial court 's ruling will result in t he denial of claim or a dism issal of suit , prelim inary 3 The t rial court did not order t he filing of a st at em ent of m at t ers com plained of on appeal pursuant t o Pa.R.A.P. 1925( b) , nor did it aut hor an opinion pursuant t o Pa.R.A.P. 1925( a) . 4 The Johnsons phrased t he quest ions present ed on appeal different ly, parsing t heir issues int o five, rat her t han t wo, quest ions for our review . Johnsons Brief at 2. To t he ext ent t hat t he Johnsons have included issues beyond t hose present ed in Glover s appeal, we conclude t hat t hey are waived, as t hey agreed t o be bound by t he resolut ion of Glover s appeal. - 6 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 obj ect ions will be sust ained only where t he case i[ s] free and clear of doubt . ¦ Thus, t he quest ion present ed by t he dem urrer is whet her, on t he fact s averred, t he law says wit h cert aint y t hat no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exist s as t o whet her a dem urrer should be sust ained, t his doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it . W e ile y v. Albe r t Ein st e in M e d. Ct r ., 51 A.3d 202, 208- 09 ( Pa. Super. 2012) ( cit at ions om it t ed) . Glover s init ial claim is t hat t he t rial court erred as a m at t er of law in concluding t hat no cause of act ion m ay lie against Udren for a violat ion of 41 P.S. § 406, in fr a , which cont rols at t orney s fees under Act 6. Glover s Brief at 8. An issue challenging t he int erpret at ion of a st at ut e present s a quest ion of law, for which our st andard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Re n n a v. Sch a dt , 64 A.3d 658, 664 ( Pa. Super. 2013) . Glover argues t hat Udren, as foreclosure counsel, violat ed sect ion 406 by collect ing cert ain cost s and fees prohibit ed by t hat provision. 5 Glover s Brief at 8- 11. The prem ise of t his claim is t hat Udren, act ing in it s capacit y as t he at t orney for t he m ort gagee, violat ed sect ion 406 by collect ing fees in excess of t hose allowed under Act 6, and t herefore, Glover is ent it led t o t reble dam ages as provided by sect ion 502, infr a , which provides rem edies for violat ion of t he Act . 5 Because t he resolut ion of t his issue t urns of t he int erpret at ion of t he st at ut e, we need not det ail t he precise fees and cost s t hat Glover cont ends were in violat ion of t he st at ut e. - 7 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 We begin wit h t he relevant st at ut ory language. Art icle I V of Act 6 cont ains t he st at ut e s prot ect ive provisions. As not ed above, it is undisput ed t hat Glover pled claim s alleging violat ions of only one of t hese prot ect ive provisions, sect ion 406, which provides as follows: § 406. At t orney's fees payable Wit h regard t o resident ial m ort gages, no r e side n t ia l m or t ga ge le n de r shall cont ract for or receive at t orney's fees from a resident ial m ort gage debt or except as follows: ( 1) Reasonable fees for services included in act ual set t lem ent cost s. ( 2) Upon com m encem ent of foreclosure or ot her legal act ion wit h respect t o a resident ial m ort gage, at t orney's fees w hich are reasonable and act ually incurred by t he resident ial m ort gage lender m ay be charged t o t he resident ial m ort gage debt or. ( 3) Prior t o com m encem ent of foreclosure or ot her legal act ion at t orneys' fees which are reasonable and act ually incurred not in excess of fift y dollars ( $50) provided t hat no at t orneys' fees m ay be charged for legal expenses incurred prior t o or during t he t hirt y- day not ice period provided in sect ion 403 of t his act . 41 P.S. § 406 ( em phasis added) . Art icle V cont ains t he rem edies and penalt ies grant ed by Act 6, and sect ion 502 provides a rem edy for t he im posit ion of excessive rat es and fees: § 502. Usury and excess charges recoverable A person who has paid a rat e of int erest for t he loan or use of m oney at a rat e in excess of t hat provided - 8 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 for by t his act or ot herwise by law or has paid charges prohibit ed or in excess of t hose allow ed by t his act or ot herwise by law m ay recover t riple t he am ount of such excess int erest or charges in a suit at law against t he pe r son who has collect ed such excess int erest or charges: Provided, That no act ion t o recover such excess shall be sust ained in any court of t his Com m onwealt h unless t he sam e shall have been com m enced wit hin four years from and aft er t he t im e of such paym ent . Recovery of t riple t he am ount of such excess int erest or charges, but not t he act ual am ount of such excess int erest or charges, shall be lim it ed t o a four- year period of t he cont ract . 41 P.S. § 502 ( em phasis added) . Act 6 also cont ains t he following relevant definit ions: Person m eans an individual, corporat ion, business t rust , est at e t rust , part nership or associat ion or any ot her legal ent it y, and shall include but not be lim it ed t o resident ial m ort gage lenders. *** Resident ial m ort gage lender m eans any person who lends m oney or ext ends or grant s credit and obt ains a resident ial m ort gage t o assure paym ent of t he debt . The t erm shall also include t he holder at any t im e of a resident ial m ort gage obligat ion. 41 P.S. § 101. The obj ect of all int erpret at ion and const ruct ion of st at ut es is t o ascert ain and effect uat e t he int ent ion of t he General Assem bly. Every st at ut e shall be const rued, if possible, t o give effect t o all it s provisions. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921( a) . It is presum ed t hat every word, sent ence or provision of a st at ut e is int ended for som e purpose and accordingly m ust be - 9 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 given effect . Com m on w e a lt h v. Lobion do, 501 Pa. 599, 603, 462 A.2d 662, 664 ( 1983) ( cit ing Com m on w e a lt h v. Sit k in 's Ju n k Co., 412 Pa. 132, 138, 194 A.2d 199, 202 ( 1963) ) ; se e a lso Toy v. M e t r o. Life I n s. Co., 593 Pa. 20, 57, 928 A.2d 186, 209 ( 2007) ( The legislat ure m ust be int ended t o m ean what it has plainly expressed. ) . I t is firm ly est ablished t hat t his Court m ay not disregard t he choice of t erm used by t he Legislat ure. Com m on w e a lt h v. Pope , 455 Pa. 384, 388, 317 A.2d 887, 889 ( 1974) ( A court m ay not alt er, under t he guise of const ruct ion, t he express language and int ent of t he Legislat ure. ) ; Com m on w e a lt h v. D e ck , 954 A.2d 603, 609 ( Pa. Super. 2008) ( This Court ¦ does not have t he aut horit y t o ignore clear st at ut ory language, even in pursuit of a st at ut e's spirit [ .] ) ; Cit y of Alle n t ow n v. Pe n n sylva n ia Pu b. Ut il. Com m 'n , 96 A.2d 157, 158 ( Pa. Super. 1953) ( holding t hat when int erpret ing a st at ut e, a court m ay not delet e or disregard words cont ained t herein) . Before applying t hese int erpret ive rules, we recap Glover s argum ent : Because sect ion 502 provides a rem edy against a person who collect s excess fees and charges, and person is defined broadly t o include but not be lim it ed t o resident ial m ort gage lenders, Glover can m aint ain a cause of act ion against t he resident ial m ort gage lender s foreclosure at t orney for collect ing at t orney s fees in excess of t hose described in sect ion 406. - 10 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 Given t he principles of st at ut ory int erpret at ion by which we are bound, we m ust rej ect Glover s argum ent . To do ot herwise would require us t o rewrit e sect ion 406 and t he conduct proscribed by it . By using t he specific t erm resident ial m ort gage lender in sect ion 406, t he Legislat ure has expressed it s int ent ion t o cont rol t he conduct of resident ial m ort gage lenders as defined under Act 6 when t he resident ial m ort gage lenders cont ract for at t orney s fees and receive t hose fees from borrowers. The use of t his t erm m akes clear t hat only resident ial m ort gage lenders can com m it a violat ion of sect ion 406 by cont ract ing for or receiving fees in excess of t hose specified t herein. As Udren is not a resident ial m ort gage lender, it cannot violat e sect ion 406. Glover acknowledges t hat sect ion 406 regulat es at t orney fee provisions cont ained wit hin ¦ cont ract s t hat are ent ered int o by hom eowners and resident ial m ort gage lenders, not t heir foreclosure counsel[ ,] but argues t hat sect ion 502 m ust be read t o encom pass law firm s act ing for resident ial m ort gage lenders because regulat ing a resident ial m ort gage lender s abilit y t o cont ract for and receive such ¦ fees would not , by it self, prot ect hom eowners from paying such fees if t he law perm it t ed law firm s t o collect t hose fees on behalf of servicer [ sic] . Glover s Brief at 18. 6 We are 6 Glover uses t he t erm s foreclosure counsel and debt collect ion counsel int erchangeably. The allegat ions cont ained in Glover s am ended com plaint m ake absolut ely clear t hat Udren, a law firm , was at all t im es act ing on - 11 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 not swayed by t his argum ent . As discussed above, t he Legislat ure int ent ionally used t he t erm resident ial m ort gage lender t o define t he ent it ies subj ect t o t he const raint s cont ained in sect ion 406. Had it int ended t o include law firm s t hat act on t he behalf of resident ial m ort gage lenders in t he prosecut ion of foreclosure act ions, it would have m ade t his explicit in t he t ext of t he st at ut e. Moreover, sect ion 406 lim it s t he am ount of at t orney s fees for which a resident ial m ort gage lender and borrower m ay cont ract . 41 Pa. C.S. § 406. A law firm act ing as foreclosure counsel for a resident ial m ort gage lender is not a part of t he agreem ent bet ween t he resident ial m ort gage lender and borrower. Sect ion 502 is a general r e m e dia l provision for conduct prohibit ed by Act 6 or ot herwise involving t he loan of m oney. Se e Roe t h le in v. Por t n off La w Assoc. Lt d., __ Pa. __, __, 81 A.3d 816, 825 ( 2013) ( rej ect ing claim against privat e t ax collect ors because [ s] ect ion 502 does not support a cause of act ion t o challenge cost s, unless t hose cost s are incurred in behalf of t he m ort gagee in prosecut ing a foreclosure act ion and not as a debt collect or as defined in FCEUA. Se e 73 P.S. § 2270.3 ( defining a debt collect or t o include [ a] n at t orney, whenever such at t orney at t em pt s t o collect a debt ¦ except in connect ion wit h t he filing or service of pleadings or discovery or t he prosecut ion of a lawsuit t o reduce a debt t o j udgm ent . ) . Since Udren was an at t orney act ing on behalf of a m ort gagee in a foreclosure act ion, t he purpose of which was t o reduce a debt t o j udgm ent , it cannot be classified as a debt collect or. Glover s claim s under FCEUA and FDCPA were dism issed by t he federal dist rict court prior t o t he com m encem ent of t his act ion. Se e Glove r v. Udr e n, 2011 WL 1496785 ( W.D.Pa. 2011) . - 12 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 connect ion wit h t he loan or use of m oney. ) . I ndeed, sect ion 502 is cont ained wit hin t hat port ion of Act 6 which is ent it led rem edies and penalt ies. We rej ect t he not ion t hat by use of t he t erm person in sect ion 502, t he Legislat ure inferent ially expanded t he scope of pot ent ial violat ors of sect ion 406 of t he Act . While it is clear t hat t he Legislat ure defined t he t erm person t o include various generic legal ent it ies7 include[ ing] but not [ ] lim it ed t o resident ial m ort gage lenders, we read t he definit ion t o clarify t hat various sect ions of t he Act do not apply only t o resident ial m ort gage lenders. While t he m aj orit y of t he provisions in Act 6 apply t o resident ial m ort gage t ransact ions, Act 6 also addresses conduct by act ors ot her t han resident ial m ort gage lenders. Se e e .g., 41 P.S. §§ 201 ( governing t he m axim um lawful int erest rat e allowed for t he loan or use of m oney in t he am ount of $50,000 or less) ; 407( c) ( forbidding a plaint iff in confessed j udgm ent act ion from receiving paym ent from defendant for cost s associat ed wit h sat isfying j udgm ent ) ; 503 ( providing t hat reasonable at t orney s fees are recoverable for a prevailing borrower or debt or, including but not lim it ed t o a resident ial m ort gage debt or[ .] ) ; Pream ble of Act 6, n.1, su pr a . Thus, t he definit ion of person in sect ion 101 m akes clear t hat when t he t erm person is used, it is not lim it ed t o resident ial m ort gage lenders. 7 41 P.S. § 101 ( Person m eans an individual, corporat ion, business t rust , est at e t rust , part nership or associat ion or any ot her legal ent it y, and shall include but not be lim it ed t o resident ial m ort gage lenders. ) - 13 - J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 We reit erat e t hat t his Court m ay not disregard t he words of a st at ut e in an at t em pt t o give effect t o what we presum e t he purpose of t he st at ut e t o be. Pope , 455 Pa. at 388, 317 A.2d at 889; D e ck , 954 A.2d at 609; Cit y of Alle n t ow n, 96 A.2d at 158. This is exact ly what Glover asks us t o do, and so her argum ent is unavailing. I n her second issue, Glover challenges t he t rial court s dism issal of her claim s under t he UTPCPL. Glover s Brief at 19. We find no error in t he t rial court s ruling. The t rial court dism issed t he UTPCPL claim s upon finding t hat all of t he claim s alleged t hereunder were m ade in connect ion wit h Udren s filing of t he foreclosure com plaint , and it s conclusion t hat t he UTPCPL does not apply t o act ions t aken by at t orneys while pract icing law. Trial Court Opinion, 6/ 13/ 12, at 7- 14. Our review of t he record support s t he t rial court s finding t hat all of Glover s UTPCPL claim s are based explicit ly upon allegat ions regarding act ions t aken by Udren in connect ion wit h t he filing of t he foreclosure com plaint . whet her Se e Com plaint , 8/ 31/ 11, at 22- 27. such claim s are viable under To det erm ine t he UTPCPL, we look t o t he Pennsylvania Suprem e Court s decision in Be ye r s v. Rich m on d, 594 Pa. 654, 937 A.2d 1082 ( 2007) , in which it held t hat t he UTPCPL does not apply t o claim s of at t orney m isconduct in t he cont ext of pract icing law. - 14 - I d. at J- A02044- 13 J- A02046- 13 659- 60, 937 A.2d at 1086. 8 Accordingly, we agree t hat Glover s claim s are not viable under t he UTPCPL. Having found no error of law or abuse of discret ion, we affirm t he t rial court s orders. W e ile y, 51 A.3d at 208. Orders affirm ed. Wecht , J. files a Concurring and Dissent ing Opinion. Judgm ent Ent ered. Joseph D. Selet yn, Esq. Prot honot ary Dat e: 4/ 23/ 2014 8 Alt hough Be ye r s is a pluralit y decision, t his holding garnered t he support of a m aj orit y of t he Court . Se e Be ye r s, 594 Pa. at 671, 937 A.2d at 1093 ( Cappy, C.J. concurring) ( j oining Just ice Fit zgerald s opinion t o t he ext ent t hat it holds t hat as a m at t er of st at ut ory const ruct ion, t he [ UTPCPL] does not apply t o at t orneys pract icing law. ) . Therefore, t his holding is binding precedent . Se e Com m on w e a lt h v. Br ow n , 23 A.3d 544, 556 ( Pa. Super. 2011) ( I n cases where a concurring opinion enum erat es t he port ions of t he pluralit y's opinion in which t he aut hor j oins or disagrees, t hose port ions of agreem ent gain precedent ial value. ) . - 15 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.