Oseyemi, G. v. Olugbade-Oseyemi, C. ( 2023 )

J-S43001-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GEORGE OSEYEMI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CECILIA OLUGBADE-OSEYEMI :
:
Appellant : No. 719 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered February 22, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): 2014-16944
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2023
Cecilia Olugbade-Oseyemi appeals pro se from the February 22, 2022
divorce decree entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.
A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our
disposition. Appellant’s untimely pro se filing entitled “Appellant’s
Memorandum (Substitute for a Brief)” (“Brief”)1 fails to comply with the
briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore,
unable to conduct meaningful appellate review.
Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash
____________________________________________
1 In the introductory paragraph, Appellant explains that she “files the within
Appellant’s Memorandum as a substitute for a Brief in Appeal[.]” Appellant’s
Br. at 1 (unpaginated). Notably, this Court granted Appellant two extensions
of time in which to file her appellate brief, which is nevertheless untimely.
J-S43001-22
or dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth
v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In
particular, “[w]hen the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is
combined with the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it
becomes clear that appellant's brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct
meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160
(Pa. Super. 1996). “[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–
52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his
lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Adams, 882 A.2d at
498.
It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be
developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P
2119(a)-(c). 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. 2101-2119. As this Court has made clear, we “will not
act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour
the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189
A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).
-2-
J-S43001-22
Here, in her 45-page Brief, Appellant fails to include a statement of
jurisdiction, the text of the order or other determination in question, a
statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions
involved, and a summary of argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3),
(4), (6). The omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly
grievous since the statement of questions involved defines the specific issues
this Court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014,
1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).
Instead, Appellant’s Brief is divided into numerous sections entitled
“Procedural Status,” “Support Calculation,” “Objections,” “Divorce and
Counterclaim,” “Discovery and Equitable Distribution,” and “Conclusions of
Law.” See Appellant’s at 1, 24, 37. In these sections, Appellant attempts to
articulate her grievances against the trial court from 2014 to present but fails
to do so in any organized manner. In addition, while Appellant includes a few
boilerplate citations to legal authority in the second-to-last page of her Brief,
she fails to provide any discussion of the legal authority as it relates to her
grievances. See Appellant’s Br. at 44 (unpaginated); see also Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a), (b) (requiring discussion and citation of authorities that are deemed
pertinent to an Appellant’s argument).
These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review. Accordingly,
we are constrained to dismiss Appellant’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-3-
J-S43001-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/12/2023
-4-