Glover, M. v. Udren Law Offices
1953 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Glover borrowed money in 2002; after financial hardship she entered a 2006 forbearance and later loan modification(s); attorney Udren filed a 2006 foreclosure complaint asserting collection costs and attorney fees.
- Glover alleged Udren collected unlawful attorney fees (flat-rate, unincurred, without court authorization) in violation of Pennsylvania’s Act 6 §406/§502 and the UTPCPL; she pursued claims in federal court and against Udren in state court.
- The federal court dismissed many claims and left Act 6 and UTPCPL claims to be reasserted in state court; the Third Circuit later affirmed summary judgment for Wells Fargo on Act 6, finding Glover failed to show she paid unlawful fees.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Glover v. Udren, held §502 provides a remedy against any “person” who has collected excessive fees and remanded for further proceedings (declining to define “collected” on that record).
- On remand Udren raised collateral estoppel based on the Third Circuit’s Wells Fargo decision; the trial court sustained Udren’s preliminary objections and dismissed Glover’s complaint.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding collateral estoppel applied because the issue whether Glover was charged and paid unlawful fees was identical, finally adjudicated, and fully and fairly litigated in federal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to interpret “collected” under §502 on remand | Supreme Court mandate required the trial court to decide meaning of “collected” before other defenses | Remand was for further proceedings generally; collateral estoppel defense was permissible to adjudicate | Waived and meritless; remand did not preclude consideration of collateral estoppel, court may address other issues on remand |
| Whether Udren is judicially estopped from asserting collateral estoppel (inconsistent positions) | Udren previously argued in federal proceedings that claims against it and Wells Fargo were unrelated, so it should be estopped from asserting identity now | Udren’s prior positions were not inconsistent about attorney-fee issues and it did not successfully maintain an inconsistent position that would trigger judicial estoppel | Waived and rejected on the merits; no clear prior successful inconsistent position to invoke judicial estoppel |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Glover’s Act 6 claim against Udren | Glover: federal adjudication against Wells Fargo was not identical (timing, parties, discovery limits), so issue preclusion shouldn’t apply | Udren: Third Circuit’s finding that Glover failed to show she was charged or paid unlawful fees is identical and dispositive of the “collected” element for liability against Udren | Collateral estoppel applies: issues identical, final judgment on the merits, same party/privity, and Glover had a full and fair opportunity to litigate; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Glover v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., 139 A.3d 195 (Pa. 2016) (Supreme Court held §502 can reach any “person” who collected excessive fees and remanded for further proceedings)
- Glover v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., [citation="629 F. App'x 331"] (3d Cir. 2015) (affirmed summary judgment for Wells Fargo because plaintiff failed to show she paid unlawful attorney fees)
- Shaffer v. Smith, 673 A.2d 872 (Pa. 1996) (articulates Pennsylvania collateral estoppel elements)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (federal collateral estoppel doctrine and use as shield or sword)