*1 exercise of was a valid provision Rendell’s veto of Section IV, Article 16 of our item under Section power his veto Constitution. IV, of the hold that Article Section 16 summary, we the Governor from effec-
Pennsylvania prohibits Constitution defining appropria- tively vetoing portions language language funds disapproving tion without with which language in Sections associated. The Governor’s vetoes 219, 223, “language only” disapprovals, and 2010 were such not. provision of the Section 801 while Governor’s veto Accordingly, we reverse order the Commonwealth upheld Court to extent that it the Governor’s vetoes 219, 223, language Appro- and 2010 the General Sections part Act of and affirm that of the order that priation 801 of the upheld language Governor’s veto Section 2005 GAA. relinquished.
Jurisdiction SAYLOR, BAER, EAKIN Justices Justice TODD join Justice McCAFFERY the opinion.
and on behalf of all others Appellants/Cross-Appellees ASSOCIATES, LTD, PORTNOFF LAW Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued March 2007. Aug.
Decided *3 Konidaris, Rubb, for et Esq., Sewickley, Jerry S. Bernard (14 2006) al. WAP Malakoff, P.C., Malakoff, Finberg, Esq., Doyle P. &
Michael Community Or- for amicus curiae Association Pittsburgh, 2006) (14 for Reform Now. WAP ganizations Gemmill, Colonna, Esq., Helen Louise Esq., Marie Kimberly Nuriek, L.L.C., McNees, for Portnoff Harrisburg, Wallace & 2006) (14 Associates, Ltd. WAP Vernallis, Stacey F. Esq., McCabe, Michael G. Goehring, Boehm, Rutter & Pittsburgh, for amicus curiae Capital, GLS (14 2006) Inc. WAP Corbett, Jr.,
Thomas W. Esq., P.A. of Attorney Office General, (14 for 2006) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WAP Gemmill,
Helen Louise Esq., for Harrisburg, Portnoff Law Associates, (15 2006) Ltd. WAP Rubb, Esq., Bernard S. Sewickley, for Jerry Konidaris and (cid:127) (15 2006) Theodara G. Konidaris. WAP Malakoff, Michael Malakoff, P. Esq., P.C., & Doyle Finberg, for Pittsburgh, amicus curiae Association of Community Or- (15 ganizations 2006) for Reform Now. WAP Vernallis, F. Stacey Esq., Goehring, Boehm, Rutter & Pitts- curiae, burgh, amicus Pittsburgh, Inc., Capital, GLS (15 2006) WAP Weiss,
Ira Esq., Pittsburgh, for amicus curiae West Jeffer- District, (15 2006) son Hills School et al. WAP CAPPY, C.J., BEFORE: CASTILLE, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER BALDWIN, JJ.
OPINION Justice BAER. granted
We review this case to determine whether a retroactive amendment to the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens (“MCTLA”), Act Act of May P.L. amended, as § 53 P.S. et seq. providing for the imposition on delin- quent taxpayers of “reasonable attorney fees” incurred in a school taxes, district’s collection of violates the Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution,1 which any forbids *4 act of the General Assembly from impinging right. I, § 1. Article open; 11. Courts to be suits the Commonwealth All open; every courts shall be injwy man done in him his for lands, goods, person reputation remedy by shall have due course of law, sale, justice administered delay. without denial or may brought against manner, Suits be the Commonwealth in such in such courts and in Legislature such may by cases as the law direct. added). § 11 (emphasis 1, Art. Pa. Const.
59 919, 930 138, A.2d 842 577 Corp., & S Ieropoli AC meet fail to taxpayers (2004). delinquent Concluding that unconstitutionality of demonstrating high burden of the amendment, the decision reverse we statutory grant partial reinstate part, Court court, for and remand the trial by entered summary judgment proceedings. further enact- closely legislative tied are arguments
The parties’ to the MCTLA. relating interpretations judicial ments and MCTLA, and of the history begin with brief Accordingly, we in this at issue amendment the 2003 retroactive in particular 1996, allowed the MCTLA February 1923 and case. Between percent collection fee of five attorney of an imposition for the judgment. See or default resulting in a verdict for claims fees attorney 7187, providing (originally §§ P.S. Act by amended but, infra, as further discussed percent five 2, imposition § 7, 1996, permit P.L. No. Feb. 7106). In § to 53 P.S. pursuant fees” attorney “reasonable legal fees over increase of the relative recognition § 3 the in 1996 amended Assembly century, the General attorney “reasonable” the collection of to allow for MCTLA2 percent. fees five the collectable fees, limiting than rather (as 7, 1996, P.L. No. of Feb. § amended Act P.S. 1). delinquent thus burdened provision § The fee 1. in col- lees attorney expended the reasonable taxpayer with burden of taxes, the financial imposing rather than lecting the district. Pursuant municipality or school collection on ordi- amendment, adopted municipalities the dictates of schedule of establishing a nances and resolutions 7106(a.l). § 53 P.S. fees. See omission, however, the apparent drafting
Due to an
to the collection
spoke only
statute as amended
rather than
claims”
“municipal
fees
reasonable
Pentlong
held
In March
this Court
“tax claims.”3
statute,
provi-
will refer to this
Utilizing
of the
the nomenclature
2.
MCTLA,"
P.S.
is set forth at 53
Ҥ
hereinafter as
sion
§ 7106.
general
arising
unpaid
taxes
legal
claims" refer to
claims
"Tax
owners, including property
property
citizens or
that are levied on all
*5
Inc.,
34,
(2003),
Corp.
Capital,
In response, Assembly quickly General amended the provide recovery delinquent MCTLA to for the from the of reasonable fees in the collec- taxpayers expended claims, liens, taxes, municipal tion of tax claims municipal “[a]ll (as 14, § and tax liens.” 53 P.S. amended Act of Aug. 20”). 83, 20, 2,§ P.L. No. effective immediately)(“Act Moreover, Assembly that the amend- specified General January Aug. ment “shall be retroactive to 1996.” Act of 14, 2003, 20, § P.L. No. 10. The in both legislative history the House and the that Senate indicate the amendment was intended to address this interpretation Pentlong, Court’s to provide statutory taxing authorization for authorities to expended collect reasonable fees in the collection of tax municipal claims as well as claims. Senator Jane Orie explained purposes of the bill:
First, the amendments to the Claim and Tax Municipal rights Lien Act and those clarify municipalities who hold from rights municipalities collecting process all claims especially under this Act. This is important Allegheny County Municipal because the Claim and Tax Lien Act is the statute that tax collection principal governs claim enforcement municipal County. actions
Second, these amendments reaffirm the Assem- General bly’s intentions since the of the Act passage years almost 80 ago. Namely recoupment that of costs expended retain counsel enforce competent, experienced legal claims for of taxes is a payment legitimate expense imposed by Pentlong Corp. Capital, taxes school See districts. v. GLS Inc., (2003). contrast, "municipal 573 Pa. 820 A.2d legal arising unpaid special claims” are claims taxes that are against specific properties pay improvements levied limited to property, repairs. such as sidewalk See id. minority property small be recoverable should scofflaws. are tax who owners of en- the process streamline
Third, amendments these add changes These the Act. under for taxes claims forcing and expenses costs reducing the benefit important these actions. associated with *6 (statement of 28, 2003, Journal-Senate, at 859 July
Legislative Orie). Sen. bar, and Jerry Appellants of the case to the facts
Turning pay to failed Taxpayers”) (“Delinquent Konidaris’ Theodora property for their 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in school taxes The County. Allegheny McKeesport, City in the located claim was The tax taxes was delinquent $2147.59. total of McKeesport of the in favor property on the by liens secured August dates between separate three District.4 On School requested District the School 2000 and June Firm”) (“the Associates, LTD Law Portnoff Law Appellee process, the collection During taxes. the delinquent collect to account total tax claim to the Firm added $3779.97 Law Delinquent The fees. fees, attorney including for various attorney taxes and the some of the paid allegedly Taxpayers protesting apparently without fees thereto attendant Eventually, fees. attorney of the imposition of the legality proper- on the proceedings sale Firm initiated sheriff the Law 1999 taxes. the 1998 and respect to ty with however, 7, 2003, April scheduled for A sheriffs sale in the complaint filed their Delinquent after stayed 28, 2003, a after this Court’s March week on judice case sub fees imposition Pentlong rejecting decision to recover sought complaint claims. The to tax incident Firm connection with to the Law paid fees taxes, enjoin relief to declaratory and delinquent collection of collection of in the adding fees incurred Firm from the Law to assigned that had been against anyone lien other tax any relating to include documents Court does not The record before this taxes, liens, underlying proceedings. and the delinquent resultant brought by only the action Court addresses record before this employed collect the taxes. law firm to delinquent taxpayers the Law Firm.5 The trial court stayed the then-pending sher- iffs sale of the Delinquent Taxpayers’ enjoined property Firm from proceeding Law any sheriffs sale on other properties where attorney fees had been added to the lien. light passage 14, 2003, of Act 20 on August retroactively would all validate the fees challenged by the Delinquent Taxpayers, the Law Firm petitioned the trial court sale, the prior stay dissolve of the sheriffs which in turn facilitate the recovery would of the challenged attorney fees. After briefing 15, 2003, on hearings, December the court granted the order to the stay dissolve of Act light 20. On 31, 2003, however, December the court granted the Delinquent Taxpayers’ request stay the sheriffs sale based on the Delinquent Taxpayers’ assertions that they were filing interlocutory appeal Court, with the claiming the ruling a controlling involved question law.6 On 2, 2004, April the trial court issued yet another order staying the sale of the Delinquent Taxpayers’ property, enjoining Film proceeding any sale on other proper- *7 ties. August presumably to move this case to a final
resolution, the trial court urged parties both to file cross- summary motions for judgment regarding the constitutionality of Act 20. The court and the parties apparently realized that if Act 20 retrospectively validated the previously imposed fees, attorney then the Delinquent Taxpayers would no longer complaint currently 5. The captioned was filed and is as a action class property on behalf of all owners of real property “whose real has been subject delinquent municipal property of claims for taxes or delin- quent property school delinquent taxes which placed tax claims were ¶ Complaint, with for [the Firm] collection." 26. As the class was certified, purely never we will regard Delinquent address the case personal 1715(a) Taxpayers' ("Except by claims. Pa.R.C.P. special court, judgment by order of the no pleadings default or on the summary judgment may be entered favor of or the class until certify the court has certified or refused to the action as a class action.”). may The trial court have to address the of status the class upon action remand. 6. The record is not clear appeal whether an was filed or whether the interlocutory Court denied review of the order. Re- gardless, the case remained before the trial court. of imposition for the legal premise challenge able to be filed motion The Delinquent fees.7 of retroactivity provision that the judgment claiming summary § 11 of of Article Act 20 the Remedies Clause violated their impinged statute because the Pennsylvania Constitution in the collection fees incurred pay attorney right not to vested Firm filed a cross-motion The Law delinquent of taxes. retroactivity that judgment, asserting summary partial constitutional. provision Delin- 21, 2004, court the trial denied September
On judgment granted summary motion for quent Taxpayers’ summary judgment. for partial Firm’s cross-motion the Law infra, as discussed Ieropoli, our decision Relying upon prohibits the Remedies Clause acknowledged trial court that if legislation application the enactment of retroactive that right, vested noted legislation extinguish would court right. is a vested trial an accrued cause action not create a cause Pentlong that the did opined decision action, not the statute as merely interpreted but instead con- fees in authorizing the collection of reasonable From that junction delinquent the collection taxes. observation, that a cause the trial court concluded absent action, im- no vested existed to be unconstitutionally concluded, are, in Act 20. The court “Plaintiffs paired by expectations they protect personal reality, seeking tax attorneys’ never fees when their pay would have are This is not and real estate liens resolved. delinquencies Pennsylvania Constitution type Process in the Due protect and the United Constitution States trial court then Trial at 4.8 The Opinion Clause.” Court retroactivity, any questions proper, of the 7. While the if would resolve generally, whether legality imposition of fees it would address reasonable, imposed question we to the court were leave trial the fees *8 upon remand. analysis on engaged process in a based 8. The trial court then due process upon retroac- precedent, no due violation the federal and found Court, however, limited application Act 20. The Commonwealth tive holding its to the Remedies Clause issue: appeal by application of Remedies Clause. current the We resolve the Therefore, arguments relat- length additional we need discuss 64
determined that its decision a “controlling question involved as to ground law which there substantial for difference of opinion” an justifying pursuant immediate appeal Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b). 12, Tr. Ct. Order Oct. Delinquent Taxpayers
The appealed to the Commonwealth The Court. Commonwealth Court majority properly began its by reviewing 138, & analysis Ieropoli AC S 577 Pa. Corp., 842 A.2d Court’s this most recent decision applying Remedies Pennsylvania Clause of the Constitution. Com- Court, however, that, monwealth failed to realize unlike the claim Ieropoli, Delinquent Taxpayer’s claim did not fit cleanly into the a traditional model of Remedies Clause issue. Ieropoli,
In plaintiff we faced a claiming were that his remedy injury had extinguished suffered been by Clause, legislative action in violation of the specifi- Remedies that the cally, General enacted Assembly legislation capping the asbestos-related of a liability successor corporation merger resulted consolidation originally- with the corporation. liable After thoroughly history analyzing the Remedies in Pennsylvania, Clause we agreed with the plaintiff that the Ieropoli legislation violated the Remedies extinguished plaintiffs Clause because it accrued cause of action recover for his asbestos-related illness. As properly Court, by the noted Commonwealth under “held that Clause, Remedies a cause of action that has accrued is a cannot be eliminated subsequent legisla- Assoc., Ltd., tion.” Konidaris v. Law 884 A.2d Portnoff (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). 353 Ieropoli applying Remedies bar, however, to the Clause case at Court focused on the exclusively sufficiency of the counts Amendment, ing process analysis to a beyond due acknowledging an obvious rational basis for the General Assem- bly’s attempt deficiency to cure in the 1996 Amendment. Associates, Ltd., (Pa. Konidaris v. 884 A.2d Portnoff Cmwlth.2005). reasoning We will not address this in detail because the Delinquent Taxpayers process failed to raise due claim their Court, Appeal Petition Allowance to this which was limited to Orchid, challenge their Purple under Remedies Clause. Inc. v. Police,
Pennsylvania (2002)(‘‘is State A.2d waived”). petition not raised in appeal sues for allowance of are *9 of the claims underlying to looking than complaint rather “Following the Su- extinguished: remedy and injury suffered the claims we examine Ieropoli, process Court’s preme here, analyzing what cause by Delinquent Taxpayers the made so, accrued, if it raised, how it has action whether affected Id. by 20].” [Act was concluded that the the Court doing,
In so count failed due declaratory judgment Delinquent Taxpayers’ the count failed defects and that fraud jurisdictional to The necessary the element of reliance. failure demonstrate unjust Delinquent Taxpayers’ that the also concluded court extent the claims related claims failed to the enrichment prior not to the enactment paid fees that had been actually such fees the concluding paying that without Act an accrued cause of complete. of action Absent cause claims, those the court con- enrichment on unjust action retroactively applied that Act 20 could be without cluded court found violating Conversely, the Remedies Clause. as to those claims the enrichment element was satisfied that prior fees to the enactment actually paid on based claims, those Act 20 Act and concluded that for limited cause of action: extinguished an accrued unconstitutionally [unjust claim enrichment] to this will “[Application 20] [Act unjust, effec- any the enrichment was argument remove that this cause of action.” Id. at tively extinguishing joined by dissent then-Presi- authored a Judge Pellegrini Although Friedman. we arrive Judge Judge dent Colins dissent, agree its a different result than the at issue, focused not on to a Remedies Clause which approach of a count in a elements procedural substantive whether satisfied, to the under- been but instead looked complaint have extinguished claim have been light plaintiffs which lying legislative Accordingly, action. the dissent viewed by filed it to be the time the liens because critical moment were point rights vested: considered that when approach defining majority’s count-by-count notion [Delinquent Taxpayers’] ignores lawsuit to collect unau- wrongful attempt “cause action” was attorneys’ thorized taxes, fees for delinquent not the counts of the complaint which merely were vehicle enforce legal rights and to pursue legal remedies. For purposes Article however, Section it is enough to say the moment a cognizable legal injury is befallen a potential plaintiff, whatever that injury be, may a cause of action has “accrued” and cannot be subsequently eliminated *10 or by altered retroactive act of the legislature. As illustrat- above, ed the cause of in action this case was the right to recover fees and prevent the future attempt collect fees on underlying tax claims that no one had the authority to in impose the first place arose, as of the day the liens whether or not those fees were “actually received” by Portnoff. J.,
Id. at 868 (Pellegrini, dissenting). Accordingly, the dissent concluded that the application of Act 20 to validate the imposi- tion of attorney fees on liens filed prior to Act 20 violated the Remedies Clause.
Following the decision of the Court, both the Delinquent Taxpayers and the Finn Law filed petitions for allowance of appeal, which this Court granted. The Delin- quent Taxpayers assert that the Commonwealth Court erred in finding constitutional the application of Act 20 to attorney fees paid after the enactment of Act Firm, 20.9 The contrast, appeals challenging the Commonwealth Court’s hold- that ing Act 20 is unconstitutional as applied to the retention of attorney fees that had been paid prior to the enactment of Act 20.
The Delinquent Taxpayers agree with the Commonwealth
Court that the appropriate test is that set forth in Ieropoli,
decreeing that
legislation
retroactive
constitutes an unconsti-
tutional
violation
the Remedies Clause if it extinguishes
rights.
vested
Their primary point of contention
Delinquent
9. The
Taxpayers
challenge
also
the Commonwealth Court’s
dismissal of
declaratory judgment
their
join
put
action for failure to
or
McKeesport
Konidaris,
on notice the
School District.
67
majority
scope
rights
Commonwealth Court
is the
vested
by
Delinquent Taxpayers
the Remedies Clause.
protected
merely
type
right,
assert that a cause of action is
of vested
numerous
cases have found
Pennsylvania
and observe that
rights.
and statutes of limitations to be vested
See
defenses
Co.,
220
69 A.
823
Pennsylvania
Lewis v.
R.
(“There
(1908)
action,
in an
cause of
right
is a
accrued
vested
action,
in a defense to a cause of
the statute of
even
attached,
an action for
limitations when the bar has
barred.”);
at 926.
Ieropoli,
debt is
see also
A.2d
in the
claim that their vested
Delinquent
a defense: the “vested
to be free of
nature of
pre-Act
post-Act
are collected
20—as
they
fees-whether
Brief for
long
they
pre-Act
as
are based on a
20 tax lien.”
below,
Taxpay
at 7. Like the
Appellant
Delinquent
dissent
that the
at the time a tax lien is
ers thus contend
law effect
rights
filed determines
and defenses are associated with
what
lien,
Camaioni,
citing
Pa.Super.
Stroback v.
A.2d
on the
(1996)(holding
plaintiffs rights
date of the
motor vehicle accident and that the
relevant
law
*11
controlled).
effect on that
claim that the
They
date
law
§
effect
the liens
filed
the version of 3 of the
when
were
MCTLA, which, as
not
interpreted
Pentlong,
provide
did
of
attorney
for reasonable
fees for the collection
tax liens.
Additionally,
attorney
that under common
fees
observing
law
express statutory authority,
cannot not be
absent
imposed
Delinquent
attorney
claim that the
fees could not
Taxpayers
MCTLA,
in this case
clear
in the
language
be levied
absent
Thomas,
citing Township
Springfield v.
165 Pa.Cmwlth.
(1994).
Delinquent
acknowledge
Brief Firm the conclusion contests Additionally, Law pay not delinquent taxpayers Pentlong granted fees, judicial interpretation it merely where was Instead, statute, right. rise to a vested give cannot a remedial statute Firm that Act 20 was asserts of the 1996 amendments revealed addressing failings Moreover, if the the Law Firm notes even Pentlong. fees, the the collection of provide MCTLA did in the and resolutions wake adopted ordinances municipalities the collection specifically permitting of the 1996 amendments Firm, Capital, suggests in.support the Law GLS Curiae 10. Amicus analysis apply in tax cases: "Careful rights does not that a vested types of cases applicable case law reveals that certain distillation of the *12 rarely (those legislation) involving curative tax and economic-related involved, whereas others rights attached to the ‘interests' have vested (those rights injury legislation) do.” involving or tort often contractual right, argues GLS that at 11. Rather than a vested Brief for GLS protected by advantage the Delinquent Taxpayers had an economic not Remedies Clause.
69 the time the liens were filed attorney at when of fees that Firm contends these The paid. the fees Law when were authority independent constitute and resolutions ordinances looks not to the MCTLA Firm collect the fees. Law and ordinances but enact these resolutions authority the Act, § that Enabling (providing 53 P.S. Tax the Local in their “may, as discre- such school districts certain entities resolution, purposes, revenue tion, general or by ordinance levying, or for the assessment collect levy, provide assess and on ... and they as shall determine and collection of such taxes interest in real real or of any the transfer of upon property, subdivision”). According- political situate within property, did argues Delinquent ly, Law Firm taxes, and thus that the pay not to not have not the Remedies Clause.11 of Act would violate application is the retroactive At the heart this case whether § the Remedies the MCTLA violates amendment interpreting our Pennsylvania of the Constitution. Clause constitution, rule construction “the fundamental state controls and must language us is that the Constitution’s guides sense, its as understood interpreted popular be A.2d they adoption.” Ieropoli, when voted on its people any challenging constitutionality Additionally, party 925. burden, presume meet heavy of a must for we statute a demonstration that the to be constitutional absent legislation plainly” statute violates Constitu “clearly, palpably, challenge any tion. Id. at 928. As with constitutionali amendment, scope plenary of a our of review ty statutory and our is de novo. standard review assuming Alternatively, arguendo fees collection agrees Firm prohibited prior liens filed to Act the Law on delinquent taxpayers paid who have the Commonwealth Court that any unjust has no fees claim enrichment because there been cannot Firm, unjust, payment. just Law or More- enrichment of the absent over, any regarding paid Firm asserts that claims fees prior the issue in the to Act 20 were waived for failure to raise actions, provides underlying especially where MCTLA tax collection liens, (providing process § tax P.S. that a to contest the see 53 stage any proceedings, present petition, his taxpayer may, at affirmation, setting oath forth that he has a defense in whole under or thereto, consists). part and of it what *13 I,
Article 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Section in toto, provides:
All courts shall be open; every and man injury done lands, him in his goods, person or reputation shall have law, remedy by due course and right justice and adminis- sale, tered delay. without denial or may Suits be brought manner, in such in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by direct. law 1, added). § Const. Art. 11 (emphasis The so-called “Remedies Clause” is the emphasized language. Although this provision is not present constitution, the federal similar language is included in at constitutions, least thirty-nine state played and has a significant role in the development Anglo- American law since the Magna Carta. Ieropoli, See 842 A.2d 925-28; Marritz, at Donald Courts to be Open; Against Suits Pennsylva I, the Commonwealth: Article Section 11 in The Rights nia Constitution: A Treatise 14.1- Liberties, on and (Ken 2004)(hereinafter 14.5 “Gormley eds., et al. Gormley, home, Closer to the Remedies Clause is included Treatise”). in the Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution as one of the “general, great and essential principles of liberty government.” and free 1, Pa. Const. Art. Preamble. While the clause is ubiquitous, its meaning subject to dispute as evidenced by different interpretations across history Gormley this Commonwealth and in our sister states. Trea §at 14.4. tise,
The language of originates the clause in the Magna Carta brought to this state and this country by William 143, 919(a). Penn. at Id. However, A.2d the Remedies Clause was not included Pennsylvania’s Constitution until 919(c). at Id. 842 A.2d The significance of the date inheres the different lights in which the colonists viewed legislature: “In the Constitution of the legislative branch was seen as the peoples’ servant and salvation and the execu- tive branch was distrusted. Things turned full circle in the ensuing decades. People became disillusioned legislative supremacy because of improprieties and abuses.” Id. 919(c) (internal omitted). A.2d quotation marks the Remedies the inclusion including made changes legislature of the Clause, power on controls placed on the as a check judiciary the power augmented legislature. Dentler, 1895 WL 33 Pa. Menges early case
In the imposed Clause that the Remedies (1859), asserted authority, imperative on legislative limitations “imperative say: they judiciary To the judicial duty. impositions —You *14 law, and course of men due justice by to all administer shall they the denial, legislature and to sale, delay; or without Id. functions.” such intermeddle with shall not say:—You at *4. 8742 1895 WL the process,” “due the oft-used term similar to
Although
in the
meaning
a
of
has
distinct
term “due course
law”
people
protects
to due
process
“The
Remedies Clause:
state,
the
property by
liberty
of
deprivations
official
against
contrast,
to ‘due
the
By
the
‘law of
land.’
except by
legal
of
guarantee
independent
an
provides
course
law’
another,
by
person
one
private wrongs
remedies for
Gormley Treatise,
at
judicial system.”
through the state’s
omitted).
in the
14.4(c)(internal
example,
For
citations
§
legislative
to override
of law was invoked
1860’s due course
decisions ad-
court
to reverse
decided
attempts
previously
Appeal,
Baggs’
See
dressing
rights
parties.
individual
(“A
(1862)
are
5187,
rights
*3
man’s
512, 1862
at
43 Pa.
WL
law, if the
of the courts
judgment
due course of
by
not decided
litigation by
opened
aside or
further
may
them
be set
upon
Dentler,
Pa.
1859
v.
33
Assembly.”); Menges
Act of
Assembly
an Act of
(1859)(declaring unconstitutional
8742
WL
by
invalidated
deed
had been
validating a sheriff’s
Court).
rejected legislative attempts
Similarly, the Court
Reiser v.
prior
statutes. See
judicial interpretations
dictate
Assoc.,
39 Pa.
1861 WL
Saving
Tell
Fund
The William
ret-
impose
could
(1861)(holding
legislature
had
the courts
where
statutory interpretation
roactively
involving
in a case
differently,
language
interpreted
parties).
dispute
private
contract
between
issue,
Before considering the retroactive effect of the
at
law
observe that the Remedies Clause has been
fre-
invoked
quently
legislature attempts
when the
to alter or eliminate in
statutory
full either a
or common
cause of action for an
law
injury. Scholars have observed two
lines of cases:
divergent
viewing
protection
inju-
one
the constitutional
remedies
Brenner,
ries
right,” Kelly
as
“fundamental
317 Pa.
(1934),
175 A.
a more
recent
line of cases
Clause,
restricting
impact
of the Remedies
see Freezer
Co.,
Storage,
Armstrong
Inc. v.
Cork
While case law has to the alteration of allow remedies, common in Ieropoli law and other cases cited there- in, that we have held the alteration cannot apply retroactively to accrued causes of action. Our Court in in an oft- Menges, cited forth passage, appli- set the rationale retroactive cation of in law some instances: case,
The
character
gives
law which
to a
and
it is
decision),
to be decided
the forms of
(excluding
coming to
case,
is the
that is inherent in the
and
part
law
constitutes
it
it
complete
of when
arises as a
transaction
between
Storage essentially
prior holding
12. The
in
decision
reversed a
in
Freezer
Lunch,
114,
887,
(1959)
Dolan v. Linton's
397 Pa.
152 A.2d
legislature
which this
had held that the
Court
could not "enact a law
existing
remedy”
that vitiates an
common-law
but could enact a substi-
remedy.
Storage,
language
tute
In
Court deemed the
Freezer
Storage,
Dolan to be dicta.
Menges, Co., 269, 1870 65 Pa. Railroad Pennsylvania v. Kay limit on statutory apply (Pa.1870), refused we WL prior had accrued a case that retroactively recovery tort of the act: the passage retrospec- is this law say that therefore are bound
[W]e of a case, plaintiff deprives on this in its operation tive 9th article right, [13] and is of the Constitution inoperative. theBy every man for 11th section of the an injury shall lands, or reputation, goods, person him in his done law, justice right course of remedy by due have article is sale, or This delay. denial without administered of gov- general powers out of the excepted to be declared this When ernment, remain inviolate. and shall ever compensa- to recover full right injury happened in the suffered vested damage tion to the extent Evidently in 1866. commenced suit She plaintiff. not, act in declare aby retrospective could legislature compensated should be extent of injury to the $8000 and a flat denial of a This is a the sum of $3000. of the case at justice. The law to administer refusal it, inherent element is an complete it became time when annulled, justice is or annulled changed and if denied, course of law violated. and the due also, College Medical *7; Hospital see Jenkins Id. (1998)(holding that A.2d 1099 535 Pa. Pennsylvania, could not be birth wrongful of tort elimination statutory retroactively). applied legislation retroactive apply refused to have
Similarly, “exemptions defendant’s defenses reduces a *16 right: concept of a vested based on demands” previously included in was language Remedies Clause Tlie 13. 9, Article Section A legal exemption on liability demand, a particular a constituting complete defense to an action brought, stands quite on as high ground as a action. If the law of the case at the time when it became complete is such an inherent element in it that plaintiff a may claim it as a right, vested on possible ground what can it be held that a defendant has no vested respect with to an exemption or defense? Co.,
Lewis v. Pennsylvania 821, R. 220 Pa. 69 A. (1908). However, we limited the scope protection “It rights: must be something more a than mere expectation, based upon anticipated continuance of existing It title, law. must have a become legal equitable, to the present or future demand, enforcement of a or a legal exemp- (internal tion from a demand made another.” Id. quota- omitted). tions We have cited Lewis approval in several more recent cases: See Ieropoli, 577 Pa. 842 A.2d 926; Commonwealth, Gibson 415 A.2d (1980)(collecting cases noting that the Court has “consistently held that the Legislature’s repeal of a law which created a right of action does not disturb any actions accrued thereun- der”).
While courts in this Commonwealth and across the country vacillate along spectrum from holding sacrosanct any injury protected under common law at the time a constitution, state adopted its allowing revision only where the legislature supplies quid a pro quo remedy, allowing legislature free reign to redefine what is a “legal injury,” agree all legislative branch cannot dissolve a right to recover once a case Schuman, accrues. See David Right to a Remedy, 1197, 1206(1992). 65 Temp. “If, L.Rev. that moment in particular case, a the law would provide plaintiff access to remedy, no subsequent law can take it away.” Moreover, Id. at 1208. the date the law is frozen for occurs, case is the date the injury and thus the date the cause of action and the relevant defenses accrue.
The Delinquent the case at bar present tempting argument that they a right have not to pay attorney *17 right their and of taxes in the collection incurred fees liens the were as of the date nature of a defense the case. The injury in a tort filed, date of an it to the analogizing fit their however, they is that while argument, in their flaw to the relating jurisprudence in our terms used case into the the Clause, language the they apply fail Remedies itself, analyzing provisions as when required Remedies Clause right,” term on the “vested By focusing of the Constitution. of the sight purpose lose Taxpayers Delinquent the action of an legislative from protection Remedies Clause: case, there is done. this remedy injury for an individual’s done.” “injury no injury, for an remedy a claim for a asserting than
Rather not to claim as a frame their Delinquent Taxpayers attempt to Indeed, Taxpayers Delinquent something. do unjust of action from their cause away our focus direct claim, Court the Commonwealth enrichment, which a tort Lewis, come they attempt By invoking found flawed. to de- Remedies Clause extension of the our Court’s within demonstrate, however, their how fail to They fenses. as an affirmative defense is the same something to do action, on an premised cause of an accrued do not Taxpayers Delinquent to a The
injury
person.
done
the Remedies Clause
applying
case
any
direct us
Instead, our
on a
land.
body’s
taxpayer’s
lien
governmental
dealt
exclusively
has almost
jurisprudence
Remedies Clause
Meng-
See
of action
individuals.
tort
causes
between
law
that the
Dentler,
(noting
at *3
The alia, for, tort or contract inter ability to recover man[’s]” of a govern- way suggests protection in no injuries, The of its citizens. Delin- the misdeeds body mental from outside citations to cases any fail to provide quent encompassing this justify tort or contract law would Instead, case the Remedies within Clause. are concerned regarding potential implication bringing their asserted right not to pay fees under Remedies Clause umbrella. If the fee in this case cannot be retroactively applied, legisla- ture be prevented nearly any would increase retroactive in fees. has Superior Court noted a distinction between
application of the Remedies Clause in traditional tort and cases, cases, contract and its application tax which is perhaps applicable more to the case at bar: *18 that the principle legislature give cannot retrospec-
[TJthe
tively a
of action
where none existed at the time of the
occurrence out of
the alleged
which
cause of action arises
has no
to the
of
application
imposing
charges in the nature
rem;
of
They
a tax.
are
proceedings
no feature of a
contract relation exists and the omission of some detail of
procedure does not establish in the
of
property
owner
a
vested defense
available
a validating statute.
Dorris,
v.
Borough Huntington
78 Pa.Super.
1922 WL
2813, *1
Lewis as
(1922)(distinguishing
based on a contest
involving personal right and
of a
approving
retrospective law
validating hen
municipal
despite flaws in the enactment’ of
ordinance).
the relevant
This Court also echoed this holding
Co.,
Commonwealth v. Rockwell Mfg.
392 Pa.
140 A.2d
(1958):
taxing
The
power
Legislature
very
broad and
power
includes
to enact taxes
are
retroactive
effect
power
as well as the
to retroactively
Many
increase taxes.
Pennsylvania cases have sustained the exercise of this pow-
er and the United States Supreme Court has approved
taxes since
v.
retroactive
Stockdale
Insurance Companies,
(1874).
22 L.Ed.
Wall.
Former Chief Justice of this case. in the decision participate did join the and Justice SAYLOR Justice CASTILLE Chief opinion. dissenting opinion. concurring EAKIN files
Justice EAKIN, concur and dissent. Justice see holding; Court’s I would affirm Associates, Ltd., A.2d Konidaris Portnoff *19 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). such, join portions As I the affirmation decision, from the reversal of but must dissent of that remainder.1 failed, Taxpayers' argument Finding Delinquent Remedies Clause
1. Op., jurisdictional Majority majority address the issue. does not Commonwealth Court's dismissal n. 9. 1 would affirm the jurisdictional declaratory judgment Delinquent Taxpayers' action Konidaris, at See defects.