C.C.-C. v. L.R. ( 2020 )

J-A07028-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
C.C.-C. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
L.R. : No. 1434 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 6, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Domestic Relations at
No(s): 15-DR-365
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2020
Appellant, C.C-C. (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the August 6, 2019
Order that, inter alia, allocated the expense of a one-week summer camp
between Mother and Appellee, L.R. (“Father”) and awarded Father a credit for
his portion of the expense. We dismiss this appeal.
The underlying facts are not relevant to our disposition. The pro se Brief
Mother has submitted to this Court fails to conform to the basic requirements
of appellate advocacy. Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) specifies that matters must be
included in an appellate brief under separate and distinct titled sections
provided in a particular order. Mother’s Brief does not include: (1) a
statement of jurisdiction; (2) statements of the scope and standard of review;
(3) a statement of the questions involved; (4) a statement of the case; (5) a
summary of argument; and (6) certificates of compliance. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a). Instead, Mother’s Brief contains seven numbered paragraphs, which
J-A07028-20
combine procedural history, factual history, argument, and requested relief
without citation to the record or case law. See Mother’s Br. at 1-5
(unpaginated). While Mother does cite Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
1910.16-6(d)(1), referenced in the trial court’s Order, Mother fails to explain
how this Rule pertains to her appeal with citation to the record. See id. at 3
(unpaginated).
It is well settled that appellate briefs “must materially conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure” or risk this
Court’s quashal or dismissal of the appeal. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882
A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also Pa.R.A.P.
2111-2119 (discussing required content of appellate briefs and addressing
specific requirements for each subsection of the brief). “When issues are not
properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate
to present specific issues for review, a Court will not consider the merits
thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43
(Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Notably Rule 2116 states, in relevant
part, that “[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement
of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a).
Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,
an appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him or her of the obligation to
follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d
206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008). Ultimately, “any layperson choosing to
represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent,
-2-
J-A07028-20
assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal training will prove her
undoing.” Branch Banking and Trust, 904 A.2d at 942 (citations omitted).
“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).
In the present case, even a liberal construction of Mother’s Brief cannot
remedy the serious inadequacies, the most fatal of which is her failure to
include a statement of questions involved pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal due to the numerous defects in Mother’s
Brief, which prevent this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/21/2020
-3-