Glover v. Udren Law Offices, P.C.
92 A.3d 24
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Glover (and separately the Johnsons) sued law firms that served as foreclosure counsel, alleging they charged/collected attorney fees and costs in violation of Pennsylvania’s Loan Interest and Protection Act (Act 6) and the UTPCPL.
- Facts: homeowner entered mortgage, defaulted, entered forbearance, foreclosure complaint filed by Udren listing anticipated attorneys’ fees/costs; later loan modifications increased principal to include alleged foreclosure fees/costs. Plaintiff continued to make modified payments.
- Procedural: federal court dismissed some claims; Glover refiled in state court. Trial court sustained defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissed complaint with prejudice. Appeals from those orders were consolidated for disposition.
- Plaintiff’s theory under Act 6: section 406 limits attorney fees a residential mortgage lender (RML) may contract for/receive; section 502 permits treble damages against a “person” who collects excess charges — plaintiff argued that foreclosure counsel (Udren) may be liable under §502 for collecting prohibited fees.
- Plaintiff’s UTPCPL theory: defendants’ conduct in filing foreclosure pleadings and asserting improper fees constituted unfair or deceptive practices under the UTPCPL.
- Trial court dismissed Act 6 claims because §406 governs only “residential mortgage lenders” (not law firms); dismissed UTPCPL claims as barred by Beyers because alleged misconduct occurred in the practice of law. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreclosure counsel can be liable under Act 6 §406/§502 for collecting fees proscribed by §406 | §502 authorizes treble damages against any “person” who collected excess charges; definition of “person” includes entities beyond RMLs, so counsel who collect prohibited fees are liable | §406 by its terms regulates only “residential mortgage lenders” who contract for or receive attorney fees; foreclosure counsel are not RMLs and thus cannot violate §406 | Court: Affirmed dismissal — §406’s proscription applies to RMLs; §502’s “person” does not expand §406’s scope to include law firms as primary violators |
| Whether UTPCPL applies to attorneys’ conduct in filing foreclosure complaints (i.e., acts in practice of law) | UTPCPL protects consumers from unfair/deceptive practices; foreclosure pleadings asserting improper fees are unfair practices subject to UTPCPL | Beyers and related authority hold UTPCPL does not apply to attorneys for conduct that is the practice of law; foreclosure litigation is the practice of law | Court: Affirmed dismissal — UTPCPL claims fail because alleged misconduct occurred in the practice of law and is not covered per Beyers |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiley v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections/demurrers)
- Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statutory-interpretation standard: de novo review)
- Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 81 A.3d 816 (Pa. 2013) (scope of Act 6 remedies; limits on challenging costs not incurred in connection with loan/use of money)
- Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007) (UTPCPL does not apply to attorney conduct in the practice of law)
- Commonwealth v. Pope, 317 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1974) (canon: courts must give effect to statutory language)