Opinion
314 MDA 2023 J-A27023-23
02-06-2024
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: A.M.J. APPEAL OF: D.J.-B.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 23, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Orphans' Court at No(s): 5725
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
NICHOLS, J.
Appellant D.J.-B. appeals pro se from the order declaring that Responsible Party Services, Inc. would continue to serve as plenary guardian of both the person and the estate for Appellant's mother, A.M.J. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to dismiss Appellant's appeal.
We note that Appellant's notice of appeal listed numerous orders and dates. We have amended the caption to reflect the January 23, 2023 order that Appellant listed in her response to this Court's rule to show cause order.
The underlying facts of this matter are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/13/23, at 1-4 (unpaginated). Briefly, on October 11, 2022, the trial court issued an order appointing Appellant as limited guardian for A.M.J. and Responsible Party Services, Inc. as plenary guardian of A.M.J.'s estate. Following a hearing on October 19, 2022, the trial court removed Appellant as limited guardian of A.M.J. and replaced Appellant with Responsible Party Services, Inc. Since that date, Responsible Party Services, Inc. has served as plenary guardian of the person and plenary guardian of the estate for A.M.J.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant's claims.
As noted previously, Appellant's notice of appeal listed several orders and dates. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained that it was difficult to discern which order Appellant intended to appeal, but ultimately addressed her claims with respect to the January 23, 2023 guardianship order. While this matter was pending on appeal, this Court issued a rule to show cause as to why the appeal should not be quashed. Appellant filed a response indicating that she intended to appeal the order entered following the guardianship review hearing on January 23, 2023, which she did not include in her notice of appeal. Without any meaningful discussion concerning the appealability of the January 23, 2023 order, Appellant then engaged in a lengthy discussion of other issues and orders that she did not appeal. This Court subsequently discharged the show-cause order and referred the issue to the merits panel for review. Rule 301 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "no order of a court shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate docket in the trial court." Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1). Additionally, Rule 904(e) states: "The notice of appeal shall include a statement that the order appealed from has been entered on the docket." Pa.R.A.P 904(d); see also Commonwealth v. Strong, 825 A.2d 658, 667 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reiterating that a notice of appeal must include the correct date of the order from which an appeal is taken). Although we could quash Appellant's appeal on this basis, see Strong, 825 A.2d at 667, we decline to do so under the circumstances of this case.
Initially, we must consider whether Appellant complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This issue is a pure question of law for which "scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo." Kronstain v. Miller, 19 A.3d 1119, 1123 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).
It is well settled that appellate briefs must conform to the requirements set forth in the appellate rules. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). Further, if the defects in an appellant's brief "are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed." Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211.
The Rules require that an appellant's brief must contain, among other things, a statement of jurisdiction, the order in question, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, a statement of the case, a summary of argument, a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought, a copy of the trial court's opinion, and a copy of the appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6), (9)-(11).
Moreover, "[i]t is well-settled that this Court will not review a claim unless it is developed in the argument section of an appellant's brief, and supported by citations to relevant authority." In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c) (providing that the argument section of an appellate brief shall contain discussion of the issues raised therein and citations to pertinent legal authorities and references to the record). "Where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived." M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 465-66 (citation omitted and formatting altered). "This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).
Finally, although we understand and appreciate Appellant's concern for her mother, this Court has repeatedly stated that an appellant's pro se status does not relieve them of their duty to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008). "Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant." Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12 (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant has filed a brief in which she makes factual allegations concerning A.M.J.'s guardianship and refers to several statutes related to guardianship matters. See Appellant's Brief at 1-19. However, Appellant's brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction, the trial court's order, a statement of the scope or standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, a summary of argument, a copy of the trial court's opinion, or a copy of Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6), (9)-(11). As such, Appellant has failed to meet almost all of the requirements for an appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6), (9)-(11). Further, Appellant has failed to develop her arguments in any meaningful fashion with citations to relevant legal authority and to the record. See M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 465-66; Pauten is, 118 A.3d at 394; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c).
Under these circumstances, and given the substantial defects in Appellant's brief, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Appellant's claims. For these reasons, we are constrained to dismiss Appellant's appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12.
Our disposition does not prevent Appellant from presenting her claims of the neglect and abuse of her mother at the nursing home and other concerns to the trial court and the appropriate legal authorities. Further, Appellant may consider retaining legal counsel to pursue these matters.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.