Court Opinion

ID: 9748111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:52:27.135923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:31.708632
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I respectfully dissent.
In this case, it is conceded by Petitioner that the Department of Banking is not enforcing the provisions of Act 117 relating to “debt settlement services” pursuant to a prior order of this Court. See Petitioner’s Reply Brief at 1-2, Appendix A.1 As a *376result, Petitioner’s claims regarding the constitutionality of Act 117 with respect to the regulation of “debt settlement services” are not ripe for our review. Pennsylvania Dental Hygienists' Association, Inc. v. State Board of Dentistry, 672 A.2d 414 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); American Council of Life Insurance v. Foster, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 634, 580 A.2d 448 (1990).
Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would deny the application for summary relief in all respects.

. More specifically, Appendix A to Petitioner’s Reply Brief states the following, in pertinent part:
Secretary Kaplan asked me to provide you with the attached document that represents the Department of Banking's “current thinking” regarding the licensure and regu*376lation of the debt settlement industry in Pennsylvania.
You may recall that a provision in Act 117 of 2008, the Debt Management Services Act, which was enacted in November of 2008, prohibited the offering of debt settlement services in Pennsylvania until the Department promulgated enabling regulations.
In February, when the provision was to become effective, the Commonwealth Court enjoined the Department from enforcing it. Additionally, we are now certain that the Commonwealth Court will declare the provision requiring promulgation of enabling regulations unconstitutional.
We have therefore, decided not to go forward with the enabling regulations which we had intended to vet with industry and consumer groups as the next step in the regulatory review process....