Hall, C. v. Mill Pond Unit ( 2021 )

J-A19025-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CHERYL LYNN HALL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MILL POND UNIT OWNERS : No. 263 EDA 2021
ASSOCIATION :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Civil Division at No. 2019-CV-01035
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED AUGUST 6, 2021
Cheryl Lynn Hall (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order sustaining
the preliminary objections of Mill Pond Unit Owners Association (Mill Pond) and
dismissing Appellant’s complaint with prejudice.
The trial court summarized the procedural history, as well as its
rationale for sustaining Mill Pond’s preliminary objections, as follows:
[Appellant] filed a pro se Complaint on August 15, 2019,
alleging that she was injured on the premises located at 5728
Decker Road in the [Mill Pond] Association. [Mill Pond] filed
Preliminary Objections to the Complaint and objected based on
improper service and that the Complaint was not signed by
[Appellant] or an attorney. This Court sustained [Mill Pond]’s
Preliminary Objections and dismissed the Complaint, with
prejudice, on December 18, 2020.
[Appellant] filed her Notice of Appeal on January 14, 2021.
[Appellant] filed her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of
on Appeal on January 28, 2021, although we note that the record
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19025-21
does not reflect that defense counsel was ever served with the
Concise Statement. Nevertheless, [Mill Pond] became aware that
a Concise Statement had been filed and submitted a Response on
February 16, 2021.
***
. . . Pa.R.C.P. 400 requires the Sheriff to serve original process in
a civil action. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 401(a), the Complaint must
be served by original process within thirty (30) days of its filing.
If service of original process cannot be completed within thirty
(30) days, the Complaint must be reinstated pursuant to Pa.
R.C.P. 401(b)(1). We respectfully submit that this Court did not
abuse its discretion . . .
First, we noted that the record reflected [Appellant] did not
effectuate proper service of the Complaint by the Sheriff within
thirty (30) days. [Appellant] attempted to have the Complaint
served by improper means for original process, including by mail
and by having a clergyman hand deliver the Complaint in March
of 2020. These attempts at service of original process are clearly
improper under the Rules. While [Appellant] did eventually have
the Sheriff properly serve the Complaint upon [Mill Pond] in June
of 2020, the Complaint was never reinstated and thus was null
and void. Finally, we noted that the Complaint was not signed by
an attorney of record or by [Appellant] and therefore violated
Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1.
Furthermore, in our Order dated December 18, 2020, we
noted that even though [Appellant] elected to proceed pro se in
her case, she was still expected to follow the proper procedures
set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/5/21, at 1-2.
On appeal, Mill Pond filed a motion to quash based on deficiencies in
Appellant’s brief. Mill Pond enumerated “substantial and considerable defects
that render appellate review impossible and should result in the quashing of
this appeal.” Motion to Quash, 5/20/21, at 1-8. On June 14, 2021, this Court
denied Mill Pond’s request without prejudice. Upon review, we agree that
quashal is warranted.
-2-
J-A19025-21
It is well settled that an appellant risks quashal when a brief fails to
“materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure.” See 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, [and] 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). An appellant’s pro se status
does not relieve her of the duty to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n. 11 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Appellant’s brief is patently defective. It contains none of the sections
prescribed by Pa.R.A.P. 2111, and lacks coherent argument. See Pa.R.A.P.
2119 (setting forth requirements for the argument portion of appellate briefs).
As best we discern, Appellant’s statements are conclusory, undeveloped, and
-3-
J-A19025-21
lack citation to legal authority.1 Also, as Mill Pond stated, “Appellant’s brief
appears that it may simply be a restatement of the averments of her complaint
filed with the lower court.” Motion to Quash at 4. For these reasons, we are
unable to conduct meaningful review and are compelled to quash.
Appeal quashed.2 Case stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/6/2021
____________________________________________
1 Appellant references United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
People Article 40 and her “religious obligations,” but no case law or statutory
authority. This Court has explained we “will not consider the merits of an
argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to
cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal.” In re
Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012).
2 Mill Pond filed a second motion to quash which we received after issuing this
memorandum and therefore deny as moot.
-4-