S.B.B. v. J.E.B.-S. ( 2015 )

J-A10018-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
S.B.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
J.E.B.-S.
Appellee No. 2037 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Civil Division at No(s): 09-20, 268
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 01, 2015
Appellant, S.B.B. (Mother), appeals pro se from the November 4, 2014
order, granting Appellee, J.E.B.-S. (Father)’s motion for attorney’s fees in
the amount of $4,651.50.1 After careful review, we dismiss this appeal.
Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may … dismiss an
appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207,
1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa.
____________________________________________
1
This Court has held that orders awarding attorney’s fees for vexatious,
obdurate, or dilatory conduct are final and appealable. Kulp v. Hrivnak,
765 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa. Super. 2000).
J-A10018-15
2011). Generally, this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, but “pro
se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212.
In this case, Mother purports to raise 23 issues on appeal. Mother’s
Brief at 4-5. However, the bulk of Mother’s argument consists of
reproducing various transcripts and court filings verbatim without discussing
how they fit into any of the 23 issues Mother’s presents on appeal. See
generally id. at 9-35. We note that Mother has included one paragraph
which contains some citations to various statutes in the Adoption Act but,
this paragraph contains nothing more than one-sentence conclusions,
without any development or explanation as to why the trial court erred. See
id. at 21. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues where the
appellant has not developed her issue in any meaningful way. In re Estate
of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d
303 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will
not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v.
Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Mother’s brief are
substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful
appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant
to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-2-
J-A10018-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/1/2015
-3-