Opinion
906 WDA 2023 J-A03003-24
01-12-2024
JAMIE GRACE v. MURRAY BRADFORD, JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): FD-04-008114
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM
BOWES, J.
Murray Bradford, Jr. ("Father") appeals pro se from the October 31, 2023 order that dismissed his exceptions to the hearing officer's ruling on his motion to modify child support and adopted the temporary order that denied modification as a final order. Upon review of the certified record and Father's brief, we dismiss this appeal.
The order was signed on July 9, 2023, but not filed of record before Father filed his notice of appeal. Upon this Court's direction, the order was filed on October 30, 2023, and service of the order upon the parties in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 236 was noted on the docket the following day. Accordingly, we deem this to be a timely appeal from an order entered on October 31, 2023. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b) ("The date of entry of an order in a matter subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be the day on which the clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of entry of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b)."); Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) ("A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof."). We have amended the caption accordingly.
In light of our disposition, a detailed case history is unnecessary. Briefly, Father and Jamie Grace ("Mother") are the parents of A.B., who has special needs. In 2018, the trial court granted Mother leave to relocate with A.B. to Virginia, where he enrolled in high school at which he was permitted to continue to attend until attaining the age of twenty-two. In December 2022, when A.B. was aged twenty-one, Father filed the petition at issue, alleging that his child support obligation for A.B. should be modified because A.B. was no longer attending school and Mother was hiding income.
On March 28, 2023, a hearing officer entertained Father's petition. At the hearing, Mother expressed her exhaustion with Father's repeated litigation and her desire to terminate support altogether, saying that she "just want[s] it to be done because he's overwhelming." N.T. Hearing, 3/28/23, at 16. Ultimately, the hearing resulted in a temporary order providing that modification was unwarranted and granting Mother's request to terminate Father's support obligation. Father filed exceptions that were dismissed by the appealed-from order, which also made final the earlier temporary order. This timely appeal followed.
Father filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement that is largely the same as his one-page appellate brief quoted herein. The trial court authored an opinion in response explaining that Father failed (1) to establish that A.B. was not attending school, or (2) to substantiate allegations of undisclosed income of Mother that had been "raised, and rejected, in past support proceedings." Trial Court Opinion, 9/7/23, at 5.
In this court, Appellant filed a one-page brief that provides as follows in its entirety:
[Father] appeared before Hearing Officer Wendy Duchene on March 28, 2023. My complaint stated on March 28, 2023
transcripts expressed [Mother's] request to school denying me access to my son's daily record of school attendance and [Mother's] fraud collection of state allocated funds. My complaint also is that the judge failed to examine the number of days absent or unattended in class which where necessary for payment of support to [Mother]. Support for my special needs son was taken and placed in escrow after [Mother's] relocation petition in 2018. Support was still based on verified income and days of attendance and to which [Mother] would receive payments monthly.
On March 28, 2023, I made aware to Hearing Officer Duchene that my son [A.B.] had not been attending school full time and [Mother] is also claiming direct pay hours from the State of Va. for 40 hours a week, the same school hours of attendance. Hearing Officer Duchene understood my claim of fraud but was distracted by [Mother] and [her attorney] when asked to terminate support.
[Mother's] request to terminate support should not have stopped Hearing Officer Duchene or the [trial court] from reviewing evidence of fraud in my petition for modification. Income
statement forms were sent to both parties in the past and currently as of February 28, 2023. Once again [Mother] and [her attorney] avoided submitting income statements to verify income, property, insurance, supplemental income, or expense statements.
My support to my son [A.B.] was a monthly obligation and with the submitted evidence the honorable Bubash should continue my modification. [Mother] and [her attorney's] request to terminate the remainder of support is to avoid any review, fines or reimbursements to myself or the courts. This is my full complaint to appellate Courts.
Father's brief (some capitalization and punctuation modified).
Mother elected not to file a responsive brief in this Court.
It is well-settled that, "although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit." Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super. 2017). "A pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court." Smithson v. Columbia Gas of A/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa.Super. 2021) (cleaned up). "Any layperson choosing to represent 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." Id. (cleaned up).
After review of Father's brief, we find that he has waived his issues through his failure to abide by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and his failure to develop issues permitting us effective review. Appellant's filing does not comply with any aspect of our rules concerning the content of briefs. Not only does it omit a statement of questions presented as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), it is in violation of all of the following: Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5) (requiring a statement of the case); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) (requiring an argument section). Moreover, Father does not attempt to develop any argument in support of any raised claims supported by citations to the record and pertinent legal authority as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b).
Father's complete disregard for the rules of appellate procedure has left this Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 249 A.3d 257, 271 (Pa.Super. 2021) ("It is not the role of this Court to develop Appellant's argument."); Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) ("When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof." (cleaned up)); Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super. 1996) (disposing of appeal without reaching its merits where the appellant "failed to clearly identify, let alone develop, her issues for appeal").
Therefore, we dismiss this appeal without considering its merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 ("[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be . . . dismissed").
Appeal dismissed. Oral argument scheduled for January 30, 2024, is cancelled.