Opinion
J-A03016-20 No. 17 MDA 2019
03-17-2020
METRO BANK v. DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR., ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET A. HOWARD, AND ALL UNKNOWN HEIRS TO THE ESTATE OF MARGARET A. HOWARD, DECEASED APPEAL OF: DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s): 2014 CV 7968-MF BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant, Douglass Earl Howard, Jr., appeals pro se from the November 16, 2018 Order entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in this mortgage foreclosure action. In the November 16, 2018 Order, the trial court determined that: (1) the July 20, 2016 transfer of real property from the Estate of Margaret A. Howard by Appellant, as administrator of the Estate, to himself was invalid; and (2) Appellant does not have a personal interest in the property and is, thus, prohibited from proceeding pro se. We dismiss this appeal.
The pro se Brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant's Brief does not include: (1) the full text of the Order in question; (2) accurate statements of the scope and standard of review; and (3) a copy of his Rule 1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing required contents for appellate briefs).
Most notably, the argument section of Appellant's Brief, while voluminous, is devoid of any citation to case law or to the record. See Appellant's Brief at 11-39. "The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority." Eichman v. McKeon , 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). Furthermore, "[w]hen 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). See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in dismissal of appeal).
"While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because [he] lacks legal training." Id. at 942 (citation omitted) "As our [S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, 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. (citation omitted).
In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant's Brief cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant's Brief, which hamper our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/17/2020