72 A.3d 818
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- This case concerns private entities purchasing government tax liens to collect delinquent taxes and related fees, including attorneys’ fees, from property owners.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions Pentlong II (Pentlong v. GLS Capital, Inc.) and Konidaris II govern whether assignees may collect attorneys’ fees after amendments to the MCTLA and retroactivity questions.
- Act 20 (2003) amended the MCTLA to permit reasonable attorneys’ fees from delinquent taxpayers retroactively to January 1, 1996, and its constitutionality was later upheld in Konidaris II.
- The trial court on remand held that GLS could collect attorneys’ fees and certain costs from the Class, and that revival and assignment fees were permissible under the MCTLA.
- The Class appealed, challenging GLS’s collection of attorneys’ fees, assignment fees, and revival fees, including whether revival fees could be collected where no revival occurred.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling for the class as to most issues but reversed as to Pentlong and Weitzel, remanding for appropriate relief consistent with Pentlong II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Pentlong II still control the class after Act 20 retroactivity? | Pentlong and Weitzel seek application of Pentlong II protections for named plaintiffs. | Act 20 retroactively permits attorneys’ fees; class not fully bound by Pentlong II. | Pentlong II governs named plaintiffs; remand required for proper relief; class cannot rely on Pentlong II against Act 20. |
| Are assignment and revival fees collectible from delinquent taxpayers under the MCTLA? | Fees are necessary costs of collection and may be charged to taxpayers or assignees. | Fees are authorized under the MCTLA as costs to file, preserve, and collect unpaid taxes. | Assignment and revival fees may be collected by the assignee under the MCTLA. |
| Can revival fees be collected if there was no revival of a lien? | Recovery should be limited to revival fees actually incurred through revivals. | Revival is within the statute’s scope and can be used to effect assignment. | The court will not allow revival fees where there is no revival; issue preserved for further consideration. |
| Did the trial court err in denying review of certain revival practices absent preservation? | Class preserved concerns about blanket revivals and improper revival fees. | Issue was not raised/preserved below; not reviewable. | No disturbance of the trial court’s dismissal on unpreserved revival claims. |
| Is the class entitled to relief distinct from Pentlong and Weitzel as to attorneys’ fees? | Pentlong II favorable ruling should bind the class. | Remand is needed to apply Pentlong II to Pentlong and Weitzel specifically and adjust relief. | Affirm trial court for class; reverse as to Pentlong and Weitzel; remand for appropriate relief consistent with Pentlong II. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pentlong v. GLS Capital, Inc., 573 Pa. 34, 820 A.2d 1240 (2003) ((Pentlong II))
- Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates, 598 Pa. 55, 953 A.2d 1231 (2008) ((Konidaris II))
- Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates, 884 A.2d 348 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) ((Konidaris I))
- Commonwealth v. Sutley, 474 Pa. 256, 378 A.2d 780 (1977) (principles on final judgments and subsequent legislative changes)
- Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 15 L. Ed. 435 (1855) (federal finality doctrine applicable to judgments and private rights)