The Bank of New York v. Roman, J. ( 2015 )

J-S35014-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE BANK OF NY MELLON FKA THE BANK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWABSN
INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006-19
Appellee
v.
JASON E. ROMAN
Appellant No. 1817 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered May 15, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Civil Division at No(s): 2011-C-3755
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2015
Appellant, Jason E. Roman, appeals pro se from the May 15, 2014
order entering an in rem judgment in mortgage foreclosure in favor of
Appellee, Bank of New York Mellon, in the amount of $304,820.48 plus costs
and interest. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal for failure to
adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appellate briefs must conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Rule 2119 requires that the “argument shall be divided into
as many parts as there are questions to be argued” and include “such
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35014-15
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Id. at
2119(a). “[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a
claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any
other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”
Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied,
47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012), quoting In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330, 339 (Pa. Super.
2011), appeal denied, 24 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Further, “if the defects are in the brief of the appellant … and are
substantial, the appeal … may be … dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Instantly, Appellant presents 11 issues on appeal, but fails to divide
his argument section in accordance with Rule 2119(a). Additionally,
Appellant’s brief is nine pages of single-spaced argument with no citations to
authority or references to the record. Appellant’s Brief at 4-12.1 “This 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). Further, while
this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, “pro se status confers no
special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212.
Based on the foregoing, we deem these defects in Appellant’s brief to
be sufficiently substantial to preclude any meaningful appellate review.
____________________________________________
1
Because Appellant’s brief does not contain pagination, we have assigned
each page a corresponding sequential number.
-2-
J-S35014-15
Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion under Rule 2101, and
dismiss this appeal.2
Appeal dismissed. Motion for extension of time denied. Motion for
continuance denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/2015
____________________________________________
2
We note that Appellant has filed two motions with this Court during the
pendency of this appeal. The first, filed on May 8, 2015, requested an
extension of time for Appellant to file a reply brief. The second, filed on May
15, 2015, requested a continuance on the basis that the Appellees are
“Masters of confusion” and that he “needs additional time to put forth an
appeal.” Appellant’s Motion for Continuance, 5/15/15 at 1. We deny both of
Appellant’s motions based on his failure to file an initial brief in compliance
with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, as neither of these
actions could cure this procedural defect.
-3-