Williams, M. v. Nellom, F.

J-S75037-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MIRIAM WILLIAMS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FRANK NELLOM,
Appellant No. 1460 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered March 19, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Domestic Relations, at No(s): 2012-00895
BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and MUNDY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2014
Frank Nellom (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing
his petition to reduce child support arrears. Upon review, we dismiss the
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (if defects in the brief of appellant are
substantial, the appeal may be quashed or dismissed).
In addition to being largely nonsensical, Appellant’s brief lacks
conformity with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, in stating
the “Order in Question” as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2115 (providing that the
text of the order from which an appeal has been taken shall be set forth
verbatim), Appellant instead provides:
The order in question seeks jurisdiction over Appellant where no
complaint exist [sic] to establish jurisdiction, through admitting
this fabricated hearsay evidence: “Defendant stated he makes
$25,000 a year,” the Honorable Judge Barry C. Dozer found
Income Tax Returns prove [sic] is false to require rejecting as
evidence.
J-S75037-14
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (underline in original).1
The sum effect of Appellant’s brief, including his argument, which
spans less than two pages, is nonsensical. See Smathers v. Smathers,
670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (a pro se appellant’s brief precluded
meaningful review where the brief contained no organized and developed
arguments, and even a liberal construction of the brief based on appellant’s
pro se status did not remedy the brief’s inadequacies). To the extent that
Appellant argues that “a complaint was never filed”, Appellant’s Brief at 7,
the record contains a “Child Support Enforcement Transmittal” dated June 6,
2012, from the Albany Hub Interstate Center in Albany, Georgia, on behalf
of Appellee and the parties’ minor child, which scheduled a conference for
July 6, 2012 in Pennsylvania.
We further note that the record lacks notes of testimony from the
March 19, 2014 proceedings underlying the March 19, 2014 order from
which Appellant appeals. An appellate court cannot consider anything that is
not a part of the record. Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623 (Pa. Super.
1993). The burden to produce a complete record for appellate review rests
solely with the appellant. Commonwealth v. Chopak, 615 A.2d 696, 701
____________________________________________
1
Our review of the record reveals that Appellant is appealing from a hearing
officer’s recommendation that was made an order of court by the Honorable
Ann Osbourne.
-2-
J-S75037-14
n.5 (Pa. 1992). A failure by an appellant to ensure that the original record
certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review
constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined. Smith, supra.
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2014
-3-