Moyer, T. v. Moyer, A. ( 2021 )

J-A13017-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TIFFANY T. MOYER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ANTHONY C. MOYER : No. 1861 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic
Relations at No(s): No. 964117740
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 8, 2021
Appellant Tiffany T. Moyer appeals from the Order denying her
Complaint for Support after the trial court concluded that she failed to present
credible evidence that she was disabled or unable to work.1 Due to numerous
defects in Appellant’s Brief, we dismiss this Appeal.
The underlying factual and procedural history is not relevant to our
disposition. Because Appellant’s Brief fails to comply with the Pennsylvania
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The parties’ divorce action was filed in Lehigh County and did not include a
support component. The only claim filed in Northampton County was for
spousal support. The Order from Northampton County court of common pleas
denying spousal support is, thus, a final order. See Asin v. Asin, 690 A.2d
1229 (Pa. Super. 1997) (spousal support order entered in a different county
from the divorce proceedings was not companion to the divorce proceedings
and therefore, the spousal support order was immediately appealable.).
J-A13017-21
Rules of Appellate Procedure, our review is fatally hampered and we are
constrained to find each of her issues waived.
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).
“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently
developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent
discussion, with references to the record[,] and with citations to legal
authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citations omitted). As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as
counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id. If
defects in the brief are substantial, the appeal may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Here, Appellant’s brief has glaring errors and omissions in violation of
our Rules of Appellate Procedure that deprive us of the ability to provide
meaningful review of her issues. First, Appellant did not annex her Pa.R.A.P.
-2-
J-A13017-21
1925(b) Statement or the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) Opinion to her Brief in
violation of Rule 2111. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11) and (b). Next, Appellant’s
Statement of the Case violates Rule 2117 with its incomplete and self-serving
recitation of the procedural history, inclusion of argument, and failure to
provide appropriate references to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4)
(requiring “[a] closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form,
of all the facts which are necessary to be known in order to determine the
points in controversy, with an appropriate reference in each instance to the
place in the record where the evidence substantiating the fact relied on may
be found.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2117(b) (explaining that the Statement of the Case
shall not include any argument).
In addition, Appellant’s Brief includes one section titled “Summary of
Argument/Argument” in violation of Rules 2117 and 2118, which require a
brief to contain two distinct sections: one section containing a “Summary of
Argument” and a separate section containing the “Argument.” See Pa.R.A.P
2118, 2119. In her “Summary of Argument/Argument” section, Appellant
does not provide separate headings for the five issues she raises and does not
present argument specific to each issue as required by Rule 2119. Rather,
she includes a series of conclusory sentences with no citation to the record,
no citation to relevant case law, and no legal analysis in violation of Rule 2119.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating the argument section “shall be divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head
of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed—the
-3-
J-A13017-21
particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (requiring citation to
the record).
Appellant’s failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to
develop her claims with citation to the record and to legal authorities prevents
this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review. Therefore, we
conclude Appellant has waived her issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/08/2021
-4-