Gibson, R. v. Delaney, A.

J-A03025-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ROBERT L. GIBSON JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
APRIL ARNOLD DELANEY AND : No. 2213 EDA 2020
DAMON DELANEY :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 28, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 180902668
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2022
Appellant Robert L. Gibson appeals from the December 28, 2020
Judgment entered in favor of Appellees, April Arnold Delaney and Damon
Delaney, in this action to quiet title. Because defects in Appellant’s pro se
brief impede our ability to provide meaningful review, we dismiss this appeal.
A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary
to our disposition. Briefly, Appellant brought an action to quiet title on the
property at 119 E. Johnson Street in Philadelphia. In the alternative, Appellant
sought damages for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The trial court
held a bench trial on October 1, 2020. On October 22, 2020, the court found
in favor of Appellees on all counts and on December 28, 2020, the trial court
entered judgment.
J-A03025-22
Appellant filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal. The trial court did not
order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. However, the court
filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion. For the following reasons, we dismiss this
appeal.
“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of
pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111
(listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing
argument requirements for appellate briefs). “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).
Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,
this does not entitle a pro se litigant to any advantage based on his lack of
legal training. Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020).
An appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him 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 person who represents himself
“in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.” Satiro, 237
A.3d at 1151 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will
-2-
J-A03025-22
not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane,
10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). It is not the role of
this Court to develop an appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere
cursory legal discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925
(Pa. 2009).
The four-paragraph argument section of Appellant’s brief, which
purports to analyze two separate issues raised on appeal, is devoid of any
citation to the record or relevant legal authority applied and analyzed under
the facts of this case. See Appellant’s Br. at 11-12. Moreover, Appellant’s
brief does not include an accurate statement of the scope and standard of
review and does not divide the argument section “into as many parts as there
are questions to be argued” as required by Rules 2111 and 2119, respectively.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) and 2119(a).
Appellant’s failure to provide any legal framework or authority to
develop and support the issues he raises on appeal not only violates our
briefing requirements, but more importantly, precludes this Court from
effectuating meaningful appellate review. We decline to act as counsel.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from argument list.
-3-
J-A03025-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 01/12/2022
-4-