author: Justice BAER.

text:
    139 A.3d 178
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Antyane ROBINSON, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted March 30, 2016.
    Decided June 20, 2016.

      Enid Wolfe Harris, Esq., for Antyane Robinson.
    Matthew Peter Smith, Esq., Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office, Charles John Volkert Jr., Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.
   OPINION

Justice BAER.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (“PCRA court”), dismissing as untimely a second petition filed by Antyane Robinson (“Appellant”) pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Acknowledging that current Pennsylvania jurisprudence renders his petition time-barred, Appellant requests that we create an equitable exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements. For the reasons set forth herein, we decline Appellant’s invitation and affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of his petition as untimely filed.

The record establishes that nearly twenty years ago, on June 29, 1996, Appellant went to the apartment of his former girlfriend, Tara Hodge, and found that Hodge had a male guest, Rashawn Bass, who was taking a shower. An argument ensued, during which Appellant shot Hodge three times, leaving her unconscious on the floor. Appellant thereafter proceeded to the bathroom where he shot Bass. Hodge regained consciousness and eventually identified Appellant as the shooter. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the first degree murder of Bass, the attempted criminal homicide of Hodge, and related offenses. During the penalty phase, the jury found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and returned a verdict of death.

Appellant thereafter filed a direct appeal in this Court, raising six claims of trial court error. On November 24, 1998, we rejected Appellant’s contentions and affirmed his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 554 Pa. 293, 721 A.2d 344 (1998). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 10, 2000. Robinson v. Pennsylvania, 528 U.S. 1082, 120 S.Ct. 804, 145 L.Ed.2d 677 (2000). Accordingly, for purposes of the PCRA, Appellant’s judgment became final on that date. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (providing that “[f]or purposes of this subchapter, a judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review”).

On October 16, 2000, within one year of the denial of certiorari, Appellant timely filed his first PCRA petition, raising twelve issues. See 42 Pa.C,S. § 9545(b)(1) (providing generally that “[a]ny petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final ... ”). The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s petition and, on April 22, 2002, denied relief. This Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on March 12, 2003, holding that five issues were not cognizable as they had been previously litigated on direct appeal and the remaining issues did not merit relief. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 583 Pa. 358, 877 A.2d 433 (2005) ("Robinson II ”).

On September 30, 2013, more than thirteen years after his judgment became final, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, raising seven issues. Therein, Appellant contended that counsel who represented him during the litigation of his first PCRA petition (“PCRA counsel”) was ineffective for omitting enumerated meritorious issues and for failing to develop adequately issues actually presented in that petition. Appellant further alleged that he was entitled to relief because of the cumulative prejudicial effect of the errors that were made in his case.

Notably, regardless of the obvious facial untimeliness of the petition, Appellant did not invoke any of the exceptions to the one-year time restriction contained in the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)—(iii) (providing exceptions to the one-year time restriction where the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials; the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the United States Supreme Court or this Court after the time period provided in this section and has been held to apply retroactively). Further, Appellant acknowledged the well-settled proposition that couching post-conviction issues in terms of ineffectiveness cannot “save” an untimely filed PCRA petition that does not fall into any of the exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar. See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (2000) (holding that an allegation that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to present available claims does not excuse compliance with the timeliness requirements of the PCRA).

Rather than asserting an exception to the timeliness requirement, Appellant asked the court to adopt a new procedure whereby it would review untimely PCRA petitions that challenge the effectiveness of PCRA counsel. He relied on recent United States Supreme Court case law, discussed infra, in which the High Court made an equitable determination that ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, which collateral counsel failed to raise in the initial state post-conviction proceeding, could be examined in a federal habeas corpus proceeding if post-conviction counsel in the initial state collateral proceeding was either absent or ineffective. Appellant argued that, regardless of the untimeliness of a PCRA petition, Pennsylvania state courts should likewise review waived claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness in serial post-conviction proceedings where the petitioner alleges that PCRA counsel was ineffective.

In response, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s petition as untimely filed, noting that it was filed more than thirteen years after his judgment became final. It contended that the PCRA time-bar is jurisdictional in nature, Petitioner failed to assert any exception to the timeliness requirement, and, thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of the petition.

The PCRA court agreed with the Commonwealth and declined to grant Appellant the requested relief, holding that it is not the role of the court to set policy for the Commonwealth by rewriting the PCRA. Moreover, the trial court held, the federal case law cited by Appellant did not require states to alter their post-conviction procedures, and, if any change in PCRA practices was warranted, that change should be effectuated by the General Assembly or our appellate courts. Because Appellant filed his PCRA petition more than one year after his judgment of sentence became final and did not assert that an exception to the PCRA time-bar applied, the PCRA court held that the petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, the court refused to address the merits of Appellant’s petition and granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss.

As he did below, Appellant now asks this Court to adopt an equitable exception to the PCRA’s one-year filing restriction where, as in the instant case, a subsequent and facially untimely PCRA petition challenges the performance of PCRA counsel. Appellant’s argument begins with the acknowledgement of his ruled-based right to counsel in a first post-conviction collateral proceeding. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904 (providing that the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent a petitioner in his first petition for post-conviction collateral relief). He posits that the right to post-conviction counsel encompasses the right to effective post-conviction counsel. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693, 699-700 (1998) (holding that “[i]t is axiomatic that the right to counsel includes the concomitant right to effective assistance of counsel”). Appellant continues that, in order to obtain a remedy for a violation of his right to effective post-conviction counsel, there must a forum where he can enforce the right by challenging PCRA counsel’s performance. He further contends that, if his PCRA petition is deemed untimely filed, he falls into a “gap in this Court’s jurisprudence” because he has a right to effective assistance of PCRA counsel, but has no procedural mechanism by which to enforce that right. Brief for Appellant at 10.

Appellant asserts that this Court has recognized that this paradox exists, but has been unable to reach a consensus on a proper solution. See Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103, 971 A.2d 1125, 1140 (2009) (plurality) (acknowledging the difficulty a petitioner faces in enforcing his right to effective PCRA counsel considering that it would be virtually impossible to file a serial petition raising PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness in a timely manner before the one-year statutory filing period expired); see also Commonwealth v. Holmes, 621 Pa. 595, 79 A.3d 562, 584 (2018) (noting that “this Court has struggled with the question of how to enforce the ‘enforceable’ right to effective PCRA counsel within the strictures of the PCRA, as the statute was amended in 1995”). Appellant concludes that this case presents the Court with a vehicle by which to resolve the issue by amending our procedure for reviewing claims challenging the performance of post-conviction counsel.

Appellant urges the Court to follow the lead of the United States Supreme Court in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 5.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013). In those cases, the High Court altered the federal law of procedural default to allow post-conviction petitioners to have their waived claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings where post-conviction counsel never raised such claims. Appellant concedes that Mar tinez and Trevino altered only federal law and do not require any change in Pennsylvania’s post-conviction procedure. Nevertheless, he contends, this Court should adopt similar changes to our state post-conviction procedure, which, in the instant case, would allow him to raise challenges to PCRA counsel’s performance for the first time in an otherwise untimely filed PCRA petition.

The Commonwealth contends that Appellant’s position is unsupportable as this Court has held that the PCRA “confers no authority upon this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar in addition to those exceptions expressly delineated in the Act.” Commonwealth Brief at 9 (quoting Commonwealth v. Watts, 611 Pa. 80, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (2011) (citations omitted)). Further, it asserts, the time restriction in Section 9545(b)(1) of the PCRA is jurisdictional in nature, thus, if a PCRA petition is filed untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction and has no legal authority to address the substantive claims. Here, the Commonwealth maintains, Appellant’s petition was facially untimely, having been filed more than thirteen years after his judgment became final, and Appellant did not assert any exception to the timeliness requirement.

The Commonwealth further submits that, contrary to Appellant’s contentions, he does not fall into any “gap in this Court’s jurisprudence” relating to the enforceability of the right to PCRA counsel. In Ligons and Holmes, the Commonwealth explains, this Court discussed whether a petitioner could challenge PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness on appeal from the trial court’s denial of collateral relief in connection with a timely filed PCRA petition. That topic arose, it maintains, only after the Court acknowledged that a serial PCRA petition was pragmatically unavailable as a means to enforce the right to effective post-conviction counsel due to the statutory time restraints of the PCRA. The Commonwealth argues that this Court has never suggested that a petitioner could challenge post-conviction counsel’s performance in an untimely serial PCRA petition as courts would lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Moreover, the Commonwealth argues, the instant facts demonstrate that Appellant’s proposed equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar would swallow the general rule and open the floodgates to endless litigation by allowing petitioners to file serial PCRA petitions, raising a multitude of waived issues years after final judgment, in direct contravention of the dictates of the statute.

Finally, the Commonwealth contends, the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez and Trevino do not support Appellant’s position, as a change in federal procedural law does not warrant a similar change in state procedural law; particularly where the requested change violates a clear statutory mandate, i.e., the timeliness requisites of the PCRA. It submits that this Court in Holmes examined the Martinez decision and concluded that it did not require a change in post-conviction procedures in states that preclude the presentation of ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal, but rather created a safety valve to allow for federal review where the underlying claim involved trial counsel ineffectiveness, and initial collateral review counsel did not recognize it. See Holmes, 79 A.3d at 583. Accordingly, the Commonwealth asks that we decline Appellant’s request to adopt an equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar and affirm the trial court’s order dismissing his petition.

In reviewing an order denying post-conviction relief, we examine whether the trial court’s determination is supported by evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ali, 624 Pa. 309, 86 A.3d 173, 177 (2014). Where an issue presents a question of law, the appellate court’s standard of review is de novo, and its scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d at 1036. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, it is clear that the trial court committed no legal error in refusing to craft an equitable exception to the statutory time restrictions contained in the PCRA and in dismissing Appellant’s petition as untimely filed.

The PCRA provides eligibility for relief in conjunction with cognizable claims, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii), and requires petitioners to comply with the timeliness restrictions. Id. § 9545(b). As noted, a PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date that judgment becomes final. Id. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment becomes final for purposes of the PCRA “at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.” Id. § 9545(b)(8).

It is well-settled that the PCRA’s time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Commonwealth v. Williams, 629 Pa. 533, 105 A.3d 1234, 1239 (2014); Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638, 641 (1998). As such, this statutory time-bar implicates the court’s very power to adjudicate a controversy and prohibits a court from extending filing periods except as the statute permits. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214, 222 (1999). Accordingly, the “period for filing a PCRA petition is not subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling;” instead, the time for filing a PCRA petition can be extended only by operation of one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. Id.

The exceptions to the PCRA time-bar are found in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) (relating to governmental interference, newly discovered facts, and newly recognized constitutional rights), and it is the petitioner’s burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 619 Pa. 549, 65 A.3d 339, 346 (2013). Whether a petitioner has carried his burden is a threshold inquiry that must be resolved prior to considering the merits of any claim. Id. Further, it is well-settled that couching a petitioner’s claims in terms of ineffectiveness will not save an otherwise untimely filed petition from the application of the time restrictions of the PCRA. Id.

Applying this law to the instant case, we find that Appellant’s petition does not satisfy the PCRA timeliness requirement as it was filed on September 30, 2013, more than thirteen years after his judgment became final on January 10, 2000, As the one-year time restriction was not met, we must examine whether any of the statutory exceptions in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)—(iii) apply. We conclude that they do not. Appellant has never asserted that the failure to raise his el alms was the result of interference by government officials. Id. § 9545(b)(1)®. He has also failed to allege that the facts upon which his claim were predicated were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence. Id. § 9545(b)(l)(ii). Finally, Appellant fails to refer to any constitutional rights recognized after his conviction became final, which were held to have retroactive application. Id. § 9545(b)(l)(iii).

Instead, Appellant alleges that his petition should be deemed timely filed because he is challenging the effectiveness of his original post-conviction counsel. This contention fails as there is no statutory exception to the PCRA time-bar applicable to claims alleging the ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel. The Legislature has spoken on the requisites of receiving relief under the PCRA and has established a scheme in which PCRA petitions are to be accorded finality. To allow Appellant, who has already litigated twelve substantive issues in his first timely filed PCRA petition, to raise new claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness more than a decade after his judgment became final, directly conflicts with the legislative mandate of Section 9545(b)(1) of the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 643 (holding that the “PCRA places time limitations on such claims of error, and in doing so, strikes a reasonable balance between society’s need for finality in criminal cases and the convicted person’s need to demonstrate that there has been an error in the proceedings that resulted in his conviction”). The fact that Appellant frames his issues as alleging the effective assistance of PCRA counsel simply does not overcome the court’s lack of jurisdiction to address them.

Moreover, as noted cogently by the Commonwealth, Appellant’s reliance on statements made by this Court in Ligons and Holmes are misplaced, as those eases did not involve untimely filed PCRA petitions, but rather discussed the presentation of claims alleging PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness on appeal from the denial of relief in connection with a timely filed PCRA petition, a practice this Court later affirmatively rejected. See n. 6, n. 8, supra. This Court has never suggested that the right to effective PCRA counsel can be enforced via an untimely filed PCRA petition.

Finally, as the Commonwealth and the lower court recognized, the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez and Trevino do not support adoption of an equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. As noted, the Martinez Court altered the law applicable to federal habeas proceedings by permitting post-conviction petitioners to have their waived claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings where initial post-conviction counsel was either absent or ineffective and where state law precluded the petitioner from raising ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. The Trevino decision extended the Martinez holding to apply not only in states where there is an absolute bar to presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, but also where “the state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.” Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1921.

These rulings were grounded upon the importance of effective assistance of counsel at trial and the derivative importance of opportunities to litigate challenges to trial counsel’s performance. However, as set forth by this Court in Holmes, “Martinez did not recognize a new constitutional right that the States are obliged to accommodate in any specific fashion.” Holmes, 79 A.3d at 583. Moreover, the High Court emphasized that its ruling did not violate any relevant statutory law. Martinez, 132 S.Ct. at 1320. The same cannot be said in the instant case where the proposed change in procedure would be in direct contravention of the legislatively created time-bar of the PCRA and the limited statutory exceptions provided therein. This Court has no authority to carve out equitable exceptions to statutory provisions and the federal jurisprudence cited by Appellant neither requires nor authorizes our doing so.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed.

Chief Justice SAYLOR and Justices TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, and WECHT join the opinion.

      . Specifically, Appellant asserted that the trial court: (1) erroneously admitted evidence at trial; (2) erred in precluding Appellant’s mother from testifying as to why he had guns in the house; (3) erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter; (4) erred in failing to include any life qualification questions during voir dire; (5) failed to rehabilitate certain jurors after they indicated that they would not vote to impose the death penalty; and (6) failed to give a jury instruction that a life sentence in Pennsylvania means life without the possibility of parole.

      . Appellant argued that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence warranting a voluntary manslaughter charge and for failing to argue effectively on direct appeal that he was entitled to such instruction; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that his death sentence was based upon an improper application of the perpetration of a felony aggravating circumstance; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present at sentencing evidence of his paranoid schizophrenia, family dysfunction and abuse, diminished capacity, and emotional trauma at the time of the offense; (4) the sentencing jury was never instructed that, if sentenced to life, he would be ineligible for parole; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth's cross-examination of his mother during the penalty phase; (6) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Appellant was tried while incompetent; (7) the Commonwealth’s continuous misconduct throughout trial and sentencing prejudiced him; (8) trial counsel failed to object to improper victim impact testimony; (9) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s erroneous jury charge regarding specific intent to kill and malice; (10) counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the lack of evidence supporting the (d)(7) aggravating circumstance and that it was vague and overbroad; (11) counsel ineffectively litigated on direct appeal the claim that the court erred in refusing to admit testimony of appellant's mother about why he had guns; and (12) the proportionality review performed by this Court on direct appeal was constitutionally defective,

      . Appellant subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania a writ of habeas corpus raising eighteen issues. The federal district court denied relief, Robinson v. Beard, 2011 WL 4592366, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112326 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Beard, 762 F.3d 316 (3d Cir.2014), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Robinson v. Wetzel, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 53, 193 L.Ed.2d 57 (2015).

      . Specifically, Appellant contended that PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the following issues: (1) he was denied his right to counsel when the trial court accepted his waiver of counsel absent a proper colloquy; (2) trial counsel breached her duty to consult with him regarding a viable defense strategy; (3) trial counsel waived his right to testify at trial without consulting him; and (4) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's improper arguments during the guilt phase. Appellant further asserted that PCRA counsel was ineffective in the manner that he litigated the issue involving trial counsel’s failure to present a voluntary manslaughter defense and the challenge to the trial court's jury instruction on malice and specific intent to kill.

      . Because this case involves the death penalty, the denial of post-conviction relief is directly reviewable by this Court. Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1, 79 A.3d 595, 602 n. 9 (2013) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9546(d)).

        . Unlike the instant case, neither Ligons nor Holmes involved an untimely PCRA petition. In Ligons, the capital PCRA petitioner had filed a timely PCRA petition and appealed the trial court's denial of relief, raising several substantive issues, some of which challenged the performance of PCRA counsel. An equally divided Court addressed all of the ineffectiveness claims and denied relief on the merits, while the concurring Justices viewed the claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness as new claims, which were waived because they were not presented below. In Holmes, we examined whether claims alleging the ineffectiveness of trial counsel could be considered on direct appeal. In holding that such claims must generally await collateral review, we discussed the general presentation of claims challenging PCRA counsel’s performance.

      . In Martinez, an Arizona state prisoner filed a federal habeas petition, alleging a claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness, which had never been raised by his counsel during the state collateral proceeding. Because the state collateral proceeding was the first opportunity to challenge trial counsel’s ineffectiveness under Arizona law, the petitioner asserted that he had a constitutional right to effective post-conviction counsel. Although the Supreme Court declined to recognize a federal constitutional right to effective post-conviction counsel, it altered the law of procedural default by creating a narrow exception modifying the Court's previously unqualified statement in Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), that an attorney's ignorance or inadvertence in a post-conviction proceeding does not qualify as cause to excuse a procedural default.
      Specifically, the Martinez Court declared that "[w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.” Martinez, 132 S.Ct. at 1320. The Court emphasized the importance of effective assistance of counsel at trial and the derivative importance of opportunities to litigate challenges to trial counsel’s performance. Notably, the Court observed that its ruling did not violate any relevant statutory law. Id.

      The Martinez holding was extended in Trevino to apply not only where there is an absolute bar to presenting ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal, but also where "the state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.” Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1921.

      . With this author in dissent, a majority of this Court subsequently declared that claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875, 879 n, 4 (2009) (rejecting a petitioner’s attempt to challenge PCRA counsel's performance for the first time on appeal from the denial of collateral review as such claims could have been raised in the petitioner’s response to the trial court’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss); Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874, 893 n. 12 (2010) (noting as an alternative basis for affirming the intermediate appellate court that "claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time at the direct appeal level, much less at the discretionary appeal level”); Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032, 1044 n. 14 (2011) (citing Colavita and Pitts for the proposition that claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); see also Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1201 (Pa.Super,2012), alloc. denied, 617 Pa. 635, 54 A.3d 347 (2012) (construing this Court’s case law to hold that "absent recognition of a constitutional right to effective collateral review counsel, claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first time after a notice of appeal has been taken from the underlying PCRA matter”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. Justice DOUGHERTY, Justice WECHT,

license: Public Domain

text:
    139 A.3d 187
    BRENTWOOD BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Heather HELD v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Grove Properties, Inc. Appeal of HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued April 6, 2016.
    Decided June 20, 2016.
    Brett Lawrence Messinger, Esq., Brian Jeffrey Slipakoff, Esq., Duane Morris LLP, Robert McCarthy Palumbos, Esq., Philadelphia, for HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
    Emmanuel Sam Anthou, Esq., Washington, for Grove Properties, Inc.
    John Thomas Vogel, Esq., Tucker Arensberg, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Brentwood Borough and Brentwood Borough School District.

      Heather Held, Pro Se.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of June 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.

Justice DOUGHERTY filed a concurring statement.

Justice WECHT filed a concurring statement.

Justice DOUGHERTY,

concurring.

I concur in the determination to summarily affirm the order below, writing only to explain why I agree an opinion need not accompany that mandate in this matter.

There are two Mnds of per curiam affirmances (PCAs): PCAs adopting the opinion below, thereby signaling the Court’s approval of the mandate and adoption of the reasoning of the court below, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Greene, 623 Pa. 23, 81 A.3d 829 (2013), and PCAs affirming only the order below, such as here. In the latter instance, the Court offers neither approval nor disapproval of the reasoning below; the Court either agrees with the mandate, or at a minimum, is unconvinced the appellant has made a sufficient showing to disturb that result. See Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898, 904 (1996) (when Court issues per curiam affirmance, “[u]nless we indicate that the opinion of the lower tribunal is affirmed per curiam, our order is not to be interpreted as adopting the rationale employed by the lower tribunal in reaching its final disposition”) (emphasis in original). I realize the practice may be frustrating for the bench and bar, particularly when the decision below is published.

Like all courts with discretionary review dockets, this Court attempts to identify cases of broad import or interest for review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1114(b). Many considerations go into whether to accept a case beyond the nature of the issue: the sharpness of the dispute, the quality of the advocacy, the opinions below. Once we have accepted an appeal, other considerations may govern whether the case in fact appears to be the appropriate vehicle for exposition we had hoped: the state of the record, issue preservation, quality of the briefing, points made by amicus curiae, etc.

In this case, we granted discretionary review to determine when a property is “vacant” for purposes of redeeming property under Section 32(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act, 53 P.S. §§ 7101-7505. Section 32, codified at 53 P.S. § 7293(c), generally provides the owner of any property sold under a tax or municipal claim may redeem it by filing a petition within nine months of acknowledgment of a sheriffs deed and paying certain costs. 53 P.S. § 7293(a). An exception to the right of redemption exists, however, for “vacant property.” 53 P.S. § 7293(c) (“there shall be no redemption of vacant property by any person after the date of the acknowledgment of the sheriffs deed therefor”). The statute further provides a property “shall be deemed to be Vacant property’ unless it was continuously occupied by the same individual or basic family unit as a residence for at least ninety days prior to the date of the sale and continues to be so.” Id.

The Commonwealth Court decided the case via published opinion, see Brentwood Borough Sch. Dist. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 111 A.3d 807 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015), promulgating a multi-factor test to determine vacancy. The case offered an apparent question of first impression respecting property vacancy versus continuous occupancy as a residence, and also promised an opportunity to examine the test promulgated below.

As it happens, however, in my judgment, the case has proved not to be an appropriate vehicle for providing guidance on the issue accepted, for several reasons. First, the record concerning the homeowner’s use of the property, and intention respecting the property, is minimal. Second, it is apparent there are foundational issues which are not properly in focus, such as the burden of proof, which would affect any final decision. Third, this case may be of limited utility because of its factual posture, as it involves a financial institution attempting to redeem the property rather than the homeowner, which would be the more common circumstance, and which may be the cause of the scant record. Finally, the Commonwealth Court set forth a multi-part test in its published opinion, but then focused primarily upon the habitability of the premises in rendering its decision, making this a less-than-optimum vehicle even for consideration of the wisdom of the test. See id. at 813. Our summary affirmance should not be read as approval of the test adopted below.

Justice WECHT,

concurring.

I join fully in the mandate of the Court. I write separately to expand briefly on the thoughtful and useful concurring statement of Justice Dougherty.

Like Justice Dougherty, I emphasize that our per curiam affirmance should be read neither as an approval nor disapproval of the test developed by the Commonwealth Court. Originally, this case appeared to be a vehicle by which this Court helpfully might define what it means for a property to be “continuously occupied ... as a residence” for purposes of the Pennsylvania Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act, 53 P.S. §§ 7101-7505, at § 7293(c). Following briefing and advocacy from the parties, it turns out that this is not the case.

The question presented on this appeal is not as simple as might appear at first blush. As the Commonwealth Court recognized, resolution of the matter requires a fact-intensive inquiry into the nature of an owner’s use of a particular property. Upon close review, the record in this case lacked the requisite inquiry into the facts, and advocacy from the parties did nothing to elucidate matters. Future cases may well present opportunities to consider and refine the Commonwealth Court’s non-exclusive list of factors and to apply them against a more developed fact record and within the context of more robust advocacy. Because we were unable to develop fully the legal issues before us, we must bide our time and allow these issues to incubate further within the lower courts, with the understanding that today’s order reflects neither an endorsement nor a rejection of the Commonwealth Court’s test.


author:
PER CURIAM.
      Justice DOUGHERTY, Justice WECHT,

text:
    139 A.3d 189
    CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH, Appellee v. PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellant International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor. Chambersburg Borough v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor. Appeal of International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor. Chambersburg Borough, Appellee v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, Appellant International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor. Chambersburg Borough v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor. Appeal of International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813, Intervenor.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Oct. 7, 2015.
    Resubmitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    Decided June 20, 2016.

      Matthew David Areman, Esq., Stephen C. Richman, Esq., Philadelphia, Quintes D. Taglioli, Esq., Markowitz & Richman, Allentown, for Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Assoc, and The Fraternal Order of Police, PA State Lodge, amicus curiae.
    Bradley John Betack, Esq., John Patrick McLaughlin, Esq., Ballard Spahr LLP, for PA Municipal League; PA State Assoc, of Boroughs & PA State Assoc, of Twp. Supvrs., amicus curiae.
    Warren R. Mowery Jr., Esq., John Best Neurohr, Esq., PA Labor Relations Board, for Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
    Melissa Lynn Kelso, Esq., Isaac Paul Wakefield, Esq., Scott Thomas Wyland, Esq., Salzmann Hughes, P.C., for Chambers-burg Borough.
    John R. Bielski, Esq., Richard G. Poulson, Esq., Willig, Williams & Davidson, Philadelphia, for International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1813.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2016, the appeal is dismissed as having been IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

Justice DOUGHERTY files a concurring statement joined by Justice DONOHUE.

Justice WECHT files a dissenting statement.

Justice DOUGHERTY,

concurring.

I concur in the determination further review of this matter was improvidently granted, writing only to explain my reservations regarding the lower court’s resolution of this matter. While I agree with concerns raised by Justice Wecht in his Dissenting Statement, I respectfully do not believe this matter is the appropriate vehicle to define the scope of the secondary boycott provision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (PLRA), 43 P.S. §§ 211.1-211.13.

Like all courts with discretionary review dockets, this Court attempts to identify cases of broad import or interest for review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1114(b). Many considerations apply in determining whether to accept a case beyond the nature of the issue: the sharpness of the dispute, the quality of the advocacy, the opinions below. Once we have accepted an appeal, other considerations may govern whether the case, in fact, appears to be the appropriate vehicle for the exposition we had hoped: the state of the record, issue preservation, quality of the briefing, points made by amicus curiae, etc.

In this case, Chambersburg Borough (Chambersburg) informed International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1813, which represents the professional firefighters employed by Chambersburg, it intended to lay off a number of the professional firefighters and transfer much of its firefighting responsibility to volunteer firefighting companies such as Franklin Fire Company No. 4 (Franklin). A Local 1813 official sent a letter to all IAFF union members in the area informing them of a collective bargaining dispute between Local 1813 and Chambersburg and requesting union members, who also serve as volunteer firefighters, refrain from providing their volunteer services to Chambersburg until the dispute was resolved. We granted discretionary review to determine whether this letter constituted engaging in a secondary boycott prohibited under Section 211.6(2)(d) of the PLRA, 43 P.S. § 211.6(2)(d). Section 211.6(2)(d) provides, in relevant part, it shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization “[t]o engage in a secondary boycott, or to hinder or prevent by threats, intimidation, force, coercion or sabotage the obtaining, use or disposition of materials, equipment or services....” Id.

A divided panel of the Commonwealth Court decided the case via published opinion, see Chambersburg Borough v. PLRB, 106 A.3d 212 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014), concluding the letter constituted engaging in a prohibited secondary boycott because Local 1813 intended to induce Franklin volunteers, who were also IAFF members, to refrain from providing Cham-bersburg with their firefighting services in their volunteer capacity. Judge Friedman vigorously dissented, arguing the majority’s reliance upon case law interpreting Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4), was misplaced due to the significant differences in the statutory language between Section 211.(6)(d)(2) of the PLRA and Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA. The case appeared to offer a question of first impression regarding the scope of behavior encompassed by the prohibition against secondary boycotts, a term which is not defined by the PLRA.

As it happens, however, in my judgment, the case proved not to be an appropriate vehicle for providing guidance on the issue accepted. This case may be of limited utility because of its unusual factual posture, as it involves a public employer, a union representing paid professional firefighters, and volunteer firefighters, who happened to be IAFF members as a result of their employment as professional firefighters outside the borough. Secondary boycotts are prohibited to prevent the bringing of undue economic pressure upon a secondary employer who is not involved in the primary labor dispute between an employer and a labor organization. Kerr v. Butler Bldg. Trades Council, 447 Pa. 247, 288 A.2d 525, 527 (1972), citing Local 501, IBEW v. NLRB, 181 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1950). Both the NLRA and Pennsylvania’s labor relations statutes, which include the PLRA and the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA), 43 P.S. §§ 1101.101-1101.2301, speak in terms of “employment,” “employer,” and “employee.” In this case, Franklin is not an “employer” under either the PLRA or PERA and its volunteer members, who are free to decline to provide their services for any reason or no reason, are not “employees” under either statute. Thus, the factual posture of this case does not squarely fit the concept of secondary boycott because employment is not implicated and neither a secondary employer nor secondary employees are present.

Of course, our decision to dismiss this appeal as improvidently granted is not to be read as approval of the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion Section 158(b)(4) of the NLRA and Section 211.6(2)(d) of the PLRA should be interpreted identically. Indeed, I find merit in the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board’s argument there are substantial differences in the statutory language of the NLRA and the PLRA. The NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization “to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce ... to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment ... to perform any services” with the objective of “forcing or requiring any persons ... to cease doing business with any other person....” 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(i)(B) (emphasis added). In contrast, Section 211.6(2)(d) of the PLRA prohibits a labor organization from “engaging] in a secondary boycott.” Section 211.6(2)(d) lacks language prohibiting inducement or encouragement, indicating an actual strike or refusal to provide services must occur for an unfair labor practice to be found. In this regard it is also notable Section 1201(b)(7) of PERA prohibits a labor organization from “[ejngaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by any person to engage in a strike or refusal to ... perform services ...” with the objective of forcing a public employer to cease dealing or doing business with any other person. 43 P.S. § 1101.1201(b)(7) (emphasis added). Thus, as demonstrated by Section 1201(b)(7) of PERA, if the General Assembly intended the PLRA to prohibit the mere inducement or encouragement of a refusal to provide a service, it easily could have included the requisite language in the statute.

Justice DONOHUE joins this concurring statement.

Justice WECHT,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. While the learned majority dismisses this appeal as improvidently granted, I believe that this long-pending case instead warrants a precedential opinion.

We granted allocatur in order to interpret the meaning of the phrase “engage in a secondary boycott” as codified in Section 6(2)(d) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (“PLRA”), 43 P.S. § 211.6(2)(d). This is an issue of first impression. Our Court has received substantial briefing and oral argument from the parties and amici curiae. We are now well-positioned to issue an opinion interpreting the statutory language.

The factual scenario underlying this appeal is atypical of labor disputes involving secondary boycotts. The case involves a union representing paid firefighters employed by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, as well as volunteer firefighters who provide services to that political subdivision. In particular, Chambersburg Borough employs paid firefighters who are represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters (“the Union”). Chambersburg Borough v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 106 A.3d 212, 215 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2014). The Borough relies as well upon the volunteer services of Franklin Fire Company No. 4. Id. Some of the Franklin volunteer firefighters also are members of the Union by virtue of their employment as paid firefighters in other departments. Id. The Borough alleges that one of its paid firefighters engaged in a secondary boycott by requesting that the volunteer firefighters who also were members of the Union refrain from providing services to the Borough while the Union and Borough were negotiating their collective bargaining agreement. Id.

It is no impediment to our review that this case arises from the particular circumstances of the relationship between the parties to this case. No jurisdictional bar precludes the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (“PLRB”)’s review of the Union’s purported unfair labor practice. Pursuant to Act 111, 43 P.S. §§ 217.1-217.10, public firefighters have the right to bargain collectively. Because Act 111 does not delineate the specific procedures for collective bargaining typically found in similar statutes, this Court has held that the Act must be read in pari materia with the PLRA, which contains such procedures. See Philadelphia Fire Officers Ass’n v. PLRB, 470 Pa. 550, 369 A.2d 259, 261 (1977). We also have held that the PLRB has jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labor practice claims involving firefighters’ and police unions covered by Act 111.

This case concerns allegations by a borough that the union representing the borough’s employees engaged in an unfair labor practice under Section 6 of the PLRA. It is of no moment to the jurisdictional question that the means of carrying out the alleged unfair labor practice involved a volunteer organization. The PLRB had jurisdiction to decide whether the Union committed an unfair labor practice by engaging in a secondary boycott.

Moreover, this case has widespread applicability across our Commonwealth. There are approximately eighteen hundred fire departments in Pennsylvania, the vast majority of which are volunteer organizations. It is therefore likely that many political subdivisions throughout this Commonwealth experience overlapping responsibilities among volunteer and professional fire departments. It is important that we provide guidance on this issue when presented with an appropriate case. I believe that this is such a case.

The Court’s dismissal of this appeal leaves the Commonwealth Court’s opinion untroubled. I am concerned that the latter decision may sow confusion among the bench and bar. I discern merit in the PLRB’s argument that the Commonwealth Court reached the wrong result by adopting the inap-posite standard prescribed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Although the two statutes address similar conduct, I do not believe they should be interpreted identically. In pertinent part, the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for a union or (agent thereof)

to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person ... to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to ... perform any services ... where in either case an object thereof is ... forcing or requiring any person ... to cease doing business with any other person.... Provided, [t]hat nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing.

29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4). We have recognized that “[t]he conduct described in [Section 158(b)(4)] ... is customarily referred to as a ‘secondary boycott.’ ” Kerr v. Butler Bldg. Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 447 Pa. 247, 288 A.2d 525, 527 (1972). Clearly, an actual strike or work stoppage need not occur in order to establish the unfair labor practice of inducing or encouraging a secondary boycott under the NLRA. See Lescher Building Service, Inc. v. Local Union No. 133 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, 310 F.2d 331, 336 (7th Cir.1962); Alpert v. Local 660, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 169 F.Supp. 384, 387 (D.Conn.1959). However, the related provision in the PLRA prohibits unions or their members only from “engaging] in a secondary boycott.” 43 P.S. § 211.6(2)(d). The language disparities between these two statutes suggest that they should be read differently. By broadening the definition contained within the PLRA to extend to inducement and encouragement, the Commonwealth Court’s opinion may lead employers to file unfair labor practice claims that our General Assembly never intended to allow.

I believe that this case calls upon this Court to fashion a generally applicable definition of the term “engage in a secondary boycott.” While that definition may apply with greater frequency within the context of disputes involving parties engaged in a more conventional management-labor relationship, I perceive no reason that this Court cannot expound the law in this case.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order dismissing this appeal as improvidently granted.

      . Section 211.6(2) contains two subsections (d); the above language is the text of subdivision (d) as added by the Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1445, No. 558, § 1.

      . Police officers’ and firefighters' labor rights are secured by the Police and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act (Act 111), 43 P.S. §§ 217.1-217.10, which for purposes of unfair labor practice claims is read in pari materia with the PLRA. See City of Erie v. PLRB, 612 Pa. 661, 32 A.3d 625, 635 n. 12 (2011).

      . See City of Erie v. PLRB, 612 Pa. 661, 32 A.3d 625, 635 n. 12 (2011) ("Consistent with the PLRA and Act 111 being read in pari materia, unfair labor practice charges regarding violations of Act 111 are brought under the provisions of Section 6 of the PLRA.”); Alcaraz v. PLRB, 552 Pa. 605, 716 A.2d 1238, 1244 (1998) (PLRB has jurisdiction over unfair labor practice claims brought by police and fire departments against borough); Borough of Nazareth v. PLRB, 534 Pa. 11, 626 A.2d 493, 496 (1993) (PLRB had jurisdiction over unfair labor practice brought by police department against borough; stating that "the PLRB is in the best position to resolve all unfair labor practice issues”).

      . It may well be difficult to imagine how the Union involved in this case could accomplish a traditional secondary boycott in view of the fact that firefighters are prohibited from striking under Act 111 and the fact that the volunteer firefighters are not employees of Franklin Fire Company. Nevertheless, this is a question that implicates the merits, and not an impediment to jurisdiction.

      . See Governor’s Ctr. for Local Gov't Servs., Local Government Fact Sheet (July 16, 2014), available at http://www.newpa.com/download/? wpdmdl=61323 (as of 2013, of the 1,856 fire departments in Pennsylvania, 1,740 are volunteer); see also U.S. Fire Admin., National Fire Department Census, Quick Facts (May 18, 2016), https://apps.usfa.fema. gov/census/summary (as of January 2016, of the 1,796 Pennsylvania fire departments that registered with the U.S. Fire Administration, 90.2 percent were volunteer).


author:
Chief Justice SAYLOR.
     Justice BAER,

text:
    139 A.3d 195
    Mary E. GLOVER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Former and Current Homeowners in Pennsylvania, Appellant v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., a New Jersey Debt Collector, Appellee. EdElla Johnson (a/k/a EdElla Robinson, a/k/a EdElla Robinson Johnson), Eric Johnson, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Former and Current Homeowners in Pennsylvania, Appellants v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Oct. 7, 2015.
    Resubmitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    Decided June 20, 2016.

      Ralph Nathan Feldman, Esq., Michael P. Malakoff, Esq., Michael P. Malakoff, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Mary E. Glover, Eric Johnson and EdElla Johnson.
    Irv Ackelsberg, Esq., Langer Grogan <& Diver, P.C., Philadelphia, for Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, amicus curiae.
    Julie Nepveu, Esq., for AARP, National Consumer Law Center, amicus curiae.
    Jonathan J. Bart, Esq., Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., Philadelphia, for Udren Law Offices, P.C. and Phelan Hallinan <& Schmieg LLP.
    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.
   OPINION

Chief Justice SAYLOR.

In these consolidated appeals, the Court is asked to determine whether a law firm, representing a residential mortgage lender in connection with foreclosure proceedings, can be liable to a borrower for attorney’s fees charged in violation of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law.

The Loan Interest and Protection Law, in relevant part, limits the attorney’s fees that a “residential mortgage lender shall contract for or receive ... from a residential mortgage debtor.” 41 P.S. § 406. As a remedy for a violation of Act 6’s protective provisions, Section 502 permits recovery of treble damages “in a suit at law against the person who has collected such excess interest or charges.” Id. § 502. “Person” is defined as “an individual, corporation, business trust, estate trust, partnership or association or any other legal entity, and shall include but not be limited to residential mortgage lenders.” Id. § 101.

First, we note that these cases were dismissed on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. We therefore accept as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaints and any reasonable inferences therefrom. See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 607 Pa. 527, 558, 8 A.3d 866, 884 (2010). Appellant, Mary Glover, alleges that, as counsel for her residential mortgage lender (“RML”), Appellee, Udren Law Offices, PC (“Udren”), collected excessive and unearned fees in connection with mortgage foreclosure proceedings against her. Separately, EdElla and Eric Johnson raise similar claims against Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP. Because the Johnsons stipulated that the outcome of their case is dependent upon the resolution of Glover’s, the cases were consolidated; accordingly, we resolve both appeals on the facts of Glover’s case.

Glover entered into a residential mortgage in 2002 with Washington Mutual Bank. Following Glover’s unsuccessful attempts to obtain a loan modification due to financial difficulty, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Udren took several actions on the bank’s behalf, including advising Glover, via telephone, of her unpaid debt and demanding nearly $3,400 in missed payments and fees. Eventually, the parties entered into a loan modification agreement that increased Glover’s principal balance, monthly payment, and repayment period. The increased principal included an amount of approximately $1,600 for escrow, attorney’s fees, and other charges. Glover made monthly payments pursuant to the new modified agreement.

Glover ultimately filed a putative class action against Udren in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging, inter alia, that Udren had violated Act 6 by charging unearned and excessive attorney’s fees. Because it was undis-putedly not a residential mortgage lender under Act 6, see 41 P.S. § 101 (defining “residential mortgage lender” as “any person who lends money or extends or grants credit and obtains a residential mortgage to assure payment of the debt”), Udren filed preliminary objections, asserting that Glover had failed to state an actionable claim.

The common pleas court agreed, finding that Udren’s conduct as a debt collector was governed by the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“FCEUA”), 73 P.S. §§ 2270.1-2270.6. See Glover v. Udren, No. GD-11-018015, slip op. at 5, 2012 WL 8746652 (C.P. Allegheny June 13, 2012). Nevertheless, the common pleas court noted, the FCEUA does not apply to attorneys acting within the scope of their legal representation. See 73 P.S. § 2270.3 (defining “debt collector” to include, inter alia, “[a]n attorney ... attempting] to collect a debt .., except in connection with the filing or service of pleadings or discovery or the prosecution of a lawsuit to reduce a debt to judgment”). In terms of Act 6, because Section 406 refers only to residential mortgage lenders, the common pleas court concluded that any violation of that provision does not give rise to a remedy against Udren under Section 602. It therefore sustained preliminary objections and dismissed Glover’s complaint. While addressing related claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 to 201-9.3, the common pleas court stated, “the Legislature would not have intended for legislation that is not specifically directed to debt collectors to provide a remedy for conduct that is explicitly excluded from legislation that is directed to debt collectors.” Glover, No. GD-11-018015, slip op. at 10-11.

Glover appealed, arguing that, because Act 6 permits a borrower to recover treble damages from a “person” who collects excess fees in connection with the mortgage foreclosure process, and defines “person” broadly to “include but not be limited to” residential mortgage lenders, the common pleas court had improperly narrowed the scope of the statute’s protections.

A divided panel of the Superior Court affirmed, holding that, because Section 406’s plain language regulates only the conduct of residential mortgage lenders, Section 502 does not authorize an action against a lender’s counsel for a Section 406 violation. See Glover v. Udren Law Offices, PC, 92 A.3d 24 (Pa.Super.2014). The majority rejected Glover’s contention that “person,” in Section 502, evidenced a legislative intent to make a broad set of actors liable for Section 406 violations, because the term was necessary to address, throughout Act 6’s various provisions, conduct by actors other than residential mortgage lenders. See id. at 30-31 (“While the majority of the provisions in Act 6 apply to residential mortgage transactions, Act 6 also addresses conduct by actors other than residential mortgage lenders.... Thus, the definition of ‘person’ in section 101 makes clear that when the term ‘person’ is used, it is not limited to residential mortgage lenders.”). The majority reasoned that, had the Legislature intended Section 406 to reach law firms acting on behalf of residential mortgage lenders, it would have used express language to that effect in the text.

Judge, now Justice, Wecht dissented from the majority’s resolution of this issue, construing the statute broadly to effect its remedial purpose of curtailing abuses in the residential mortgage industry. See id. at 36 (Wecht, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 623 Pa. 1, 12, 81 A.3d 816, 822 (2013)). When the statute’s provisions are read in conjunction with one another, he opined, their plain language supports Glover’s position. See id. at 37 (“Section 406 prohibits the receipt of improper charges and interest, while section 502 prohibits the collection of such charges.” (emphases in original)).

Judge Wecht also expressed concern that the majority’s decision would permit residential mortgage lenders to easily avoid regulation, since they often employ proxies—such as law firms, serving as both legal counsel and debt collector—to pursue payment delinquencies. By using the word “person” in Section 502, he continued, the Legislature indicated its intent to broaden liability for the conduct proscribed in Article IV, including Section 406. “What it is improper for an RML to receive, it is improper for an RML’s proxy to collect,” he articulated. Id. at 37.

This Court granted the appeal to resolve whether Section 502 of Act 6 provides a remedy against any “person” who has collected unlawful attorney’s fees, or whether its reach, in this respect, is limited to residential mortgage lenders. See Glover v. Udren Law Offices, PC, 630 Pa. 646, 108 A.3d 28 (2015) (per curiam).

Glover argues that, in order to effect its purpose of protecting homeowners during the mortgage foreclosure process, the Legislature created, in Section 502, a remedy for the misconduct of residential mortgage lenders and related entities. According to Glover, Act 6’s plain language belies the Superior Court majority’s narrow construction, as it contemplates the liability of a “person,” unambiguously and broadly defined. Udren’s conduct is actionable because Udren is a “person” that collected illegal fees in connection with its’representation of the residential mortgage lender in foreclosure proceedings, she alleges.

Glover continues that the Superior Court majority’s interpretation of Act 6 holds only residential mortgage lenders that collect their own debt accountable for the collection of illegal attorney’s fees. Consequently, she posits, a lender’s use of a surrogate renders any violation of Section 406 irremediable— an outcome that the Legislature presumably did not intend and which frustrates the statute’s purpose.

In their separate brief, the Johnsons incorporate the arguments advanced by Glover.

In a brief as amici curiae in support of reversal, AARP, National Consumer Law Center, and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia argue that, under the Superior Court’s unduly narrow interpretation, the prohibitions of Act 6 are too easily evaded by residential mortgage lenders who can—and regularly do—hire attorneys and other third parties to conduct debt collection and foreclosures. According to amici, homeowners are often charged unearned attorney’s fees, in violation of Act 6, that increase the cost of averting foreclosure. Amici continue that the Pennsylvania Legislature sought to rectify abuses by several parties to the system, including residential mortgage lenders and their proxies. They conclude, therefore, that Act 6’s provisions should be construed broadly to effectively prevent the harmful practices that the Legislature prohibited.

Udren asserts that the language of Section 406 plainly does not apply to attorneys representing residential mortgage lenders. It maintains that Section 502 is a generic civil-action provision, and a construction that expands Section 406 liability would require judicial revision of the statutory language. Further, relying on the common pleas court’s suggestion, see Glover, No. GD-11-018015, slip op. at 10-11, Udren claims that the Legislature would not have impliedly created liability for attorneys as debt collectors in Act 6, a usury statute, while expressly exempting them from such liability in the FCEUA, which is designed to regulate debt collection specifically. See 78 P.S. § 2270.8.

Udren also contends that the Superior Court majority’s interpretation would not leave Glover without a remedy, as demonstrated by her federal lawsuits against Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo. Moreover, Udren observes, to the extent that it acted outside the scope of an attorney prosecuting a lawsuit to judgment, the FCEUA contemplates its liability. It concludes that, in any event, as Glover does not dispute that she paid the disputed fees to Wells Fargo, not Udren, any Act 6 claim should lie against Wells Fargo.

Because the parties ask us to interpret Act 6, our object is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent, giving effect to all of the relevant statutory provisions. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). The best indication of legislative intent is generally the statutory language itself. See Burke ex rel. Burke v. Independence Blue Cross, 628 Pa. 147, 155, 103 A.3d 1267, 1272 (2014).

Reading Sections 101, 406, and 502 cohesively, it is evident that Glover’s claims are cognizable under Act 6. The plain and explicit terms permit “[a] person who has ... paid charges prohibited or in excess of those allowed by this act” to recover treble damages “in a suit at law against the person who has collected such excess ... charges.” 41 P.S. § 502 (emphasis added). Significantly, as well, the Legislature expressly defined “person” to “include but not be limited to residential mortgage lenders.” Id. § 101 (emphasis added). Under a straightforward application of the statute, then, Section 406 restricts the circumstances under which residential mortgage lenders may contract for or receive fees, while Section 502 provides a broad remedy against anyone who has collected such fees. Accordingly, consistent with the position expressed in the Superior Court dissent, we conclude that a borrower may recover under Section 502 from any entity—not solely the residential mortgage lender—that collects excessive attorney’s fees in connection with a foreclosure.

This approach also is in keeping with the remedial purposes of the statute, per which the enactment should be construed liberally to effectuate such aims. See Commonwealth ex rel. Creamer v. Monumental Props., Inc., 459 Pa. 450, 459, 329 A.2d 812, 816 (1974). As this Court has previously explained, “Act 6 is a usury law, designed to protect borrowers against improper mortgage lending practices.” Roethlein, 623 Pa. at 14, 81 A.3d at 824. In Article IV, the Legislature identified industry customs it deemed particularly pernicious, such as the initiation of foreclosure with insuffi-dent notice, the imposition of a penalty for prepayment, and the collection of unreasonable attorney’s fees. See 41 P.S. §§ 403, 405, 406. In order to enforce these protective provisions, the Legislature created strong remedies and penalties such as treble damages, shifting of litigation costs, and a $10,000 fine. See id. §§ 502, 503, 505. It further directed that these mechanisms are intended to supplement any remedies and penalties provided by any other statute. See id. § 507.

As Judge Wecht noted, the use of debt collectors and other third parties is common in the mortgage industry, see Glover, 92 A.3d at 36 (Wecht, J., concurring and dissenting), as well as in the broader context of lending, generally. In the FCEUA, the Legislature sought directly to curtail abuses by these third parties—including attorneys, when their actions were taken in their capacities as debt collectors. See 73 P.S. § 2270.3. In the statute at issue here, the Legislature’s use of the term “person” in Section 502, which it defined to include actors other than residential mortgage lenders, suggests an intent to hold accountable any of the entities that might have engaged in the abusive practices specifically prohibited in Article IV.

The plain language of the statute does not exempt attorneys, debt collectors, or any other third parties from liability in this regard. In contrast, the Superior Court majority’s holding effectively imposes a non-textual limiting construction on the word “person,” as it appears in Section 502. Such a position contravenes the core and conventional principle of statutory construction that, when a statute’s terms are plain, the courts are bound to enforce them. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b).

Furthermore, we reject Udren’s suggestion that, where conduct is excluded from one regulatory regime, it necessarily must go unregulated in others. See Brief for Appellees at 20-24. In fact, there are various instances of overlapping, coordinated, and uncoordinated protections contained within the diverse range of state and federal regulatory statutes, particularly those governing consumer affairs. See, e.g., 73 P.S. § 2270.4(a) (providing that conduct proscribed by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, is also unlawful under the FCEUA); 42 Pa. C.S. § 2524(c) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law and deeming it a violation of the UTPCPL). Conduct that is omitted from, or even permitted by, one regulatory framework may nonetheless violate another. See POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2228, 189 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014) (holding that a company may bring a claim against a competitor under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), for misleading product labeling, even where the challenged labeling may be permitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301—399f). Indeed, “[w]hen two statutes complement each other” a construction that allows one to preclude the operation of the other “would show disregard for the [legislative] design.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2238; see also J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 144, 122 S.Ct. 593, 605, 151 L.Ed.2d 508 (2001) (“[W]e can plainly regard each statute as effective because of its different requirements and protections”).

Notably, the residential mortgage arena is one, within the broader landscape of consumer protection, in which the Legislature has provided directed and enhanced protections. Thus, whatever liabilities and/or exclusions there may be under other consumer-protection statutes, Act 6 expressly imposes a specific liability upon any person who has collected attorney’s fees from a residential mortgage debtor in excess of that which the statute otherwise permits. By the same token, the fact that a law firm potentially faces liability under some other regulatory framework is irrelevant to whether Act 6 entitles Glover to damages, except with respect to purely overlapping monetary relief.

In the dissent’s view, Section 502 affords relief against only a person who has “violate[d]” a relevant substantive provision of law, such as Section 406. Dissenting Opinion, at 634-35, 139 A.3d at 203-04. As explained above, however, Section 502 instead specifically creates a cause of action against persons who have “collected” excess interest or charges. 41 P.S. § 502. Had the Legislature intended to restrict Section 502 liability solely to those persons who have violated other provisions of the law, it could readily have so prescribed. Since, however, collection is the express and controlling litmus under Section 502, per the statute, Udren’s liability ultimately must turn on whether or not it has “collected” excess or improper charges. Id.

Presently, we offer no opinion concerning the meaning of the term “collected,” as employed in Section 502, because the matter is not sharply in focus in this appeal. Rather, the appeal was allowed to consider the limiting construction on the term “person” which the Superior Court imposed, ie., “[d]oes Act 6, § 502 provide a remedy, as the explicit language of the statute establishes, against any statutorily defined ‘person’ collecting statutorily prohibited fees on behalf of residential mortgage lenders?” Glover v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., 630 Pa. 646, 108 A.3d 28 (2015) (per curiam). We hold that it does, according to the enactment’s plain language.

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Justices TODD and DOUGHERTY join the opinion.

Justice BAER files a dissenting opinion.

Justices DONOHUE and WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice BAER,

dissenting.

My colleagues in the Majority and in the Superior Court dissent ably articulate a rationale for providing a remedy against law firms acting as proxies for residential mortgage lenders imposing allegedly improper or excessive attorney fees upon residential mortgage debtors. I dissent because I read the plain language of Section 406 of the Loan Interest and Protection Law (“Act 6”), 41 P.S. § 406, as imposing liability only upon a residential mortgage lender and not the lender’s foreclosure attorney. Accordingly, I conclude that the Superior Court properly affirmed the well-reasoned decision of the trial court below.

This ease involves a residential mortgage entered into by Plaintiff-Appellant Mary Glover (“Glover”) with Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), which later transferred rights under the mortgage to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (herein, referred to collectively as “Mortgage Company”). After Glover fell behind in her mortgage payments and the parties failed to negotiate a modification agreement, Mortgage Company retained Defendant-Ap-pellee, the Udren Law Offices (Law Firm), to file a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Glover, seeking payment of the principal, interest, costs, and, as relevant to the case at bar, attorney’s fees. In June 2008, Glover commenced a putative class action in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against Mortgage Company, inter alia challenging the attorney fees charged as violative of Act 6. The case has wound its way between state and federal courts, resulting in numerous decisions.

In its present iteration, the case requires that we determine whether Section 502 of Act 6, 41 P.S. § 502, provides a remedy against a residential mortgage lender’s attorney for violation of Section 406. This Court has repeatedly observed that our object in interpreting statutes is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly, which is best indicated through the language of the statute itself. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921. Indeed, the plain language “is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Id.

The Majority Opinion accepts Glover’s reading which allows a borrower to “recover under Section 502 from any entity— not solely the residential mortgage lender—that collects excessive attorney’s fees in connection with a foreclosure.” Maj. Op. at 628, 139 A.3d at 200. I agree that the plain language of Section 502 provides remedies against entities other than residential mortgage lenders, as it allows a plaintiff who has paid interest or “charges prohibited or in excess of those allowed by this act,” to recover treble damages against the “person who has collected such excess interest or charges.”

I diverge from the Majority because I agree with the courts below that the broad general remedy provided by Section 502 is confined by the relevant substantive provision allegedly violated. As noted by Judge, now-Justice, Donohue writing for the Superior Court, the broad term “person” used in Section 502 was necessary to address the entirety of Act 6’s protective provisions, which include Section 406’s restraint on attorney fees received by residential mortgage lenders but also contain provisions governing the conduct of entities other than residential mortgage lenders such as the setting of a maximum interest rate applicable to loans generally. Glover v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., 92 A.3d 24, 30 (Pa.Super.2014) (citing 41 P.S. § 201). It is these other provisions that trigger the remedy of Section 502.

In this case, Glover asserts that a violation of Section 406 serves as the basis for the Section 502 remedy against a residential mortgage lender’s counsel when the residential mortgage lender imposes attorney fees against a debtor. The plain language of Section 406 instructs that “no residential mortgage lender shall contract for or receive attorney’s fees from a residential mortgage debtor” that are unreasonable. The courts below correctly recognized that only residential mortgage lenders can violate Section 406 because only residential mortgage lenders are named in Section 406. Glover, 92 A.3d at 29; Tr. Ct. Op. at 6-7. Moreover, a lender’s foreclosure attorney, such as Udren, has neither “contract[ed] for” nor “received[ed] attorney’s fees from a residential mortgage debtor.” The relevant contract for attorney fees is between the residential mortgage lender and the borrower. Therefore, as foreclosure attorneys cannot violate Section 406 because they are not residential mortgage lenders and, indeed, have no legal relationship with the borrower, I conclude that foreclosure attorneys cannot be subject to Section 502’s remedy given Section 406’s plain language.

We are bound by the legislature’s words, which in this case did not include foreclosure attorneys within the reach of Section 406. The General Assembly chose not to impose liability via Section 406 on attorneys, which are instead addressed in other acts. Glover, however, is now attempting to shoehorn her claims of improper debt collection practices into the structure of Act 6. Like the courts below, I would reject Glover’s argument.

Moreover, while the Majority Opinion observes that the meaning of the term “collect” has not been the focus of the arguments before this Court, Maj. Op. at 631,139 A.3d at 201, Glover’s reading of Section 502 necessarily turns on the term “collect.” As quoted by the Majority herein, the dissent below crystalized Glover’s argument, emphasizing the term collect: “Section 406 prohibits the receipt of improper charges and interest, while section 502 prohibits the collection of such charges.” Glover, 92 A.3d at 37 (Wecht, J., concurring and dissenting) (emphasis in original); see also Maj. Op. at 625-26, 628-29, 139 A.3d at 197-98, 199-200.

With all due respect, this reading produces an incongruous result because Section 406 does not provide for a remedy other than Act 6’s general remedial provision contained in Section 502. Applying Section 502’s phrase “the person who has collected such excess interest or charges,” as Glover argues, to encompass a foreclosure attorney’s collection actions on behalf of its client would require the attorney who “collected” the fees to be liable for treble damages while the residential mortgage lender, who contracted for and received the forbidden attorney fees, would not be liable because it did not “collect” the fees. I find this reading absurd and, thus, in violation of the Rules of Statutory Construction, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1).

Additionally, Glover inconsistently uses Section 502’s term “collect” to mean both the collection actions of an attorney, as described above, as well as the receipt of the fees by the residential mortgage lender. In her brief to this Court, she states that “the servicer-lender, WaMu and/or its successor Wells Fargo, collected foreclosure-related attorneys’ fees that were prohibited by [Section 406].” Glover Brief at 12 (emphasis added); see also Tr. Ct. Op. at 11 n. 11, 12 n. 12; 13 n. 13, 14 n. 14 (recognizing that Glover alleged that she paid the attorney fees to Mortgage Companies not Udren). Glover cannot have the term have different meanings based on which defendant she is suing.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the dismissal of Glover’s claims against Udren.

      . This matter was reassigned to this author.

      . Act of Jan. 30, 1974, P.L. 13, No. 6 (as amended 41 P.S. §§ 101-605) (“Act 6”).

      . At some point, Washington Mutual assigned Glover’s mortgage to Wells Fargo. Neither bank is a party to the instant litigation.

      . Glover’s litigation against Udren, et al, has a long procedural history in both state and federal court. See, e.g., Glover v. FDIC, 698 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.2012). Relevant here, Glover agreed to the dismissal, without prejudice, of her Act 6 claims against Udren from her federal lawsuit, to pursue them in state court.

      . Also in reference to these claims, the court noted that Glover had not averred that she had paid any charges directly to Udren, rather than to Washington Mutual or Wells Fargo. See, e.g., id. at 11 n. 11.

      . Additionally, they ask the Court to hold that Act 6 applies to their mortgage, which exceeded the statutory limit of $50,000 when executed, because it did not enter foreclosure until 2009, after the statute was amended to raise the qualifying amount. This issue was not before the common pleas court or the Superior Court, nor was it presented in the petition for allocatur. Accordingly, we do not consider it.

      . Act of Jan. 30, 1974 P.L. 13, No. 6 (as amended 41 P.S. §§ 101-605).

      . In full, Section 502, entitled, "Usury and excess charges recoverable,” provides:
      A person who has paid a rate of interest for the loan or use of money at a rate in excess of that provided for by this act or otherwise by law or has paid charges prohibited or in excess of those allowed by this act or otherwise by law may recover triple the amount of such excess interest or charges in a suit at law against the person who has collected such excess interest or charges: Provided, That no action to recover such excess shall be sustained in any court of this Commonwealth unless the same shall have been commenced within four years from and after the time of such payment. Recovery of triple the amount of such excess interest or charges, but not the actual amount of such excess interest or charges, shall be limited to a four-year period of the contract.
      41 P.S. § 502.

      . Act 6 defines "person" as "an individual, corporation, business trust, estate trust, partnership or association or any other legal entity, and shall include but not be limited to residential mortgage lenders.” 41 P.S. § 101. In contrast, "residential mortgage lender” is defined as “any person who lends money or extends or grants credit and obtains a residential mortgage to assure payment of the debt. The term shall also include the holder at any time of a residential mortgage obligation.” Id.

      . Section 406, entitled "Attorney’s fees payable,” provides:
      With regard to residential mortgages, no residential mortgage lender shall contract for or receive attorney’s fees from a residential mortgage debtor except as follows:
      (1) Reasonable fees for services included in actual settlement costs.
      (2) Upon commencement of foreclosure or other legal action with respect to a residential mortgage, attorney’s fees which are reasonable and actually incurred by the residential mortgage lender may be charged to the residential mortgage debtor.
      (3) Prior to commencement of foreclosure or other legal action attorneys’ fees which are reasonable and actually not in excess of fifty dollars ($50) provided that no attorneys’ fees may be charged for legal expenses incurred prior to or during the thirty-day notice period provided in section 403 of this act.
      41 P.S. § 406.

      . Indeed, the plaintiffs in the case at bar pursued actions against Udren under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), 73 P.S. §§ 2270.1-2270.6. The plaintiffs’ claims, however, were dismissed by the federal courts. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained, inter alia, that Law Firm was not liable as a "debt collector” because it was acting as an attorney prosecuting a lawsuit to reduce a debt to judgment, which is specifically excluded from governance by the FCEUA. Glover v. F.D.I.C., as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank., F.A., 698 F.3d 139, 152 (3d Cir.2012),

      . Notably, Glover sought damages from the Mortgage Companies for violation of Section 406 of Act 6, but the federal courts found that she failed to meet the necessary burden of proof. Glover v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 629 Fed.Appx. 331, 343 (3d Cir.2015) (concluding that, in regard to Wells Fargo, Glover failed "to present evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that she was charged attorney's fees not incurred or permitted under the loan documents and, more significantly, that she paid any such fees”).