Estate of: Goodwin, J., Appeal of: Nagele, L. ( 2021 )

J-A10034-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF: JEAN GOODWIN, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: LYNN S. NAGELE, :
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF :
EDWIN J. GOODWIN, DECEASED, :
NAMED EXECUTOR OF JEAN :
GOODWIN'S ESTATE : No. 310 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): 2002-X3856
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY COLINS, J.: Filed: April 22, 2021
Appellant, Lynn S. Nagele, appeals from the order1 entered
December 11, 2019, confirming the accounting of the estate of Jean Goodwin2
(“the Estate”), ordering Appellant to file a schedule of distribution, and
awarding distribution of payments from the Estate. After careful review, we
are compelled to quash this appeal.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant has filed a companion appeal stemming from the same order at
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court Docket Number
2016-X3022, which has been listed in this Court as Docket Number 313 EDA
2020 and Journal Number J-A10035-21. We will enter a separate decision for
that appeal. Nothing in the instant judgment order shall affect the oral
argument already scheduled for this companion case at No. 313 EDA 2020.
2“Decedent, Jean Goodwin, died on December 1, 2002, leaving a Will dated
February 10, 2000, which was duly probated by the Register of Wills of
Montgomery County on December 19, 2002,” and an agreement of trust. Trial
Court Opinion, dated December 11, 2019, at 1-2.
J-A10034-21
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 requires that briefs “shall” conform with the various
appellate rules, and, if the briefs are substantially defective the reviewing
court may quash the appeal. This Court has, on numerous occasions, invoked
the punitive measure of Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Drew, 510 A.2d 1244, 1245-46 (Pa. Super. 1986) (quashing appeal where
total inadequacy of the appellant’s brief prevented ascertaining whether there
was any possible merit to appeal; noting that, “we have not hesitated to quash
appeals for substantial noncompliance with these requirements”);
Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 A.2d 882, 883 (Pa. Super. 1984) (per
curiam); Commonwealth v. Davis, 455 A.2d 725 (Pa. Super. 1983); A.M.
Skier Agency v. Pocono Futures, Inc., 454 A.2d 637 (Pa. Super. 1982).
In Appellant’s brief, the entirety of the “Argument” section is bereft of
citations to any legal authority. Appellant’s Brief at 10-13. Additionally, the
Argument section includes only one citation to the record, repeated three
times, without any further analysis. Id. at 11-12.3 Furthermore, for her first
four issues, out of a total of five issues, Appellant provides argument of only
two to three sentences. Id. at 10-12.
By failing to provide any citations to case law or any other supporting
authority for these issues, all of Appellants challenges are thus waived. Kelly
v. Carman Corp., 229 A.3d 634, 656 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Pa.R.A.P.
____________________________________________
3Specifically, Appellant states, “Further said acts and transactions were made
pursuant to Paragraph EIGHTH: POWERS OF EXECUTORS AND
GUARDIANS OF THE ESTATE A. and C. (R. 93a)[,]” three times.
Appellant’s Brief at 11-12 (emphasis in original).
-2-
J-A10034-21
2119(a) (argument shall include citation of authorities); e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 281 n.21 (Pa. 2011) (without a
“developed, reasoned, supported, or even intelligible argument[, t]he matter
is waived for lack of development”); In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203,
209 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“The argument portion of an appellate brief must
include a pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities[; t]his Court will not consider
the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory
authority” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Lackner v.
Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29-30 (Pa. Super. 2006) (explaining appellant’s
arguments must adhere to rules of appellate procedure, and arguments which
are not appropriately developed are waived on appeal; arguments not
appropriately developed include those where party has failed to cite any
authority in support of contention)); see also Jones, 477 A.2d at 883 (“The
brief filed on appellant’s behalf is one of the most inadequate attempts at
appellate advocacy that the members of this panel have ever had the
displeasure of attempting to review. . . . [The] ‘Argument’ is void of any
substance in law or fact. His four sentence argument, contains no citations,
no references to the record . . . We conclude that appellant’s brief either
ignores or seriously undermines the . . . Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure”).
Appeal quashed. Oral argument cancelled.
-3-
J-A10034-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/22/21
-4-