Bisbing, E., Jr. v. Kugler, B. ( 2017 )

J-S68023-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
EARL BISBING, JR., AND BETH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
BISBING : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
BRUCE KUGLER AND LORI KUGLER :
: No. 227 MDA 2017
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 30, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s):
9115 of 2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2017
Appellants, Bruce Kugler and Lori Kugler, appeal from the Order
entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas on December 30,
2016, granting Beth Bisbing’s Petition for Contempt and Possession of Real
Estate. We dismiss this appeal.
The facts are not relevant to our disposition.1 Instantly, we recognize
that, “appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to
____________________________________________
1 Briefly, the Kuglers rented a residential property from the Bisbings. On
May 20, 2016, the court ordered the Kuglers to either purchase the property
within 60 days, or permit the Kuglers and a real estate agent to access the
property so that they could prepare a listing agreement to market and sell
the property. On November 14, 2016, Beth Bisbing filed a Petition for
Contempt and Possession of Real Estate alleging that the Kuglers failed to
comply with the May 20, 2016 Order. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted the Bisbing’s Motion. This appeal followed.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68023-17
the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations
omitted). If an appellant “fails to conform to the requirements set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure[,]” we may quash or dismiss
the appeal. Id.Our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and our case law
provide the well-established requirements for preserving a claim for
appellate review. This Court will address only those issues properly
presented and developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of
appellate procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “Appellate arguments which fail to
adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are
not appropriately developed are waived.” Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 912
A.2d 329, 336 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P.
2111-2119 (discussing required content of appellate briefs and addressing
specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). Where defects
in a brief “impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we
may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.”
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).
To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the
burden of ensuring that his argument section includes references to the
record and citations of pertinent authorities as well as discussion and
analysis of the authorities. Id. at 771; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). As this Court has
-2-
J-S68023-17
made clear, we “will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on
behalf of an appellant.” Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771.
Appellants’ Brief is woefully inadequate. In the Brief’s Statement of
Jurisdiction and “Order in Question,” Appellants aver that this Court has
jurisdiction over this “appeal from a Final Order dated January 27, 2017. . .”
denying Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration.2 However, Appellants’
representations that they are appealing from the Order denying
reconsideration contradict their Notice of Appeal, which cites the December
30, 2016 Order granting Beth Bisbing’s contempt Petition as the Order from
which they have taken this appeal. Additionally, Appellants’ Brief fails to
conform to our Rules of Appellate Procedure as it does not contain a copy of
Appellants’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement or the trial court’s Order. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(10), (11), and (b).
Most significantly, despite having set forth four questions for this
Court’s review in their Statement of Questions involved, Appellants have not
divided the argument section of their Brief “into as many parts as there are
questions to be argued.” See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Instead, Appellants’ have
presented the four questions together in one, two-page section, which is
____________________________________________
2Moreover, it is well-established that orders denying reconsideration are not
appealable. T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826, 826 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Rather, the appeal properly lies from the underlying final order itself.
-3-
J-S68023-17
replete with mere conclusions of law without any application to the facts of
this case or the Order on appeal.
Last, in the section of Appellants’ Brief titled “Law & Argument,” there
is no substantive argument pertaining to the court’s contempt Order. See
Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. Instead, Appellants baldly assert that the Landlord
Tenant Act is the “exclusive remedy for a Landlord seeking to vindicate his
rights.” Id. at 8.
These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review. Accordingly,
we dismiss this appeal. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/28/17
-4-