J-S37033-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION 

TRUST

v.

MARIAN J. MCQUAY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 920 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 7, 2021

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s): 

2014-05272

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2022

Marian J. McQuay appeals from the April 7, 2021 judgment entered in 

favor of Appellee, LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“LSF9”), in this mortgage 

foreclosure action, following the denial of Appellant’s post-trial motions. After 

careful review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of 

this case as follows:

This is a mortgage foreclosure action with respect to 

residential property located at 116 Leadline Lane, 

West Chester, Pennsylvania owned by [Appellant]. 

. . . .

Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC

Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S37033-21

- 2 -

Loans Servicing, LP, commenced this mortgage

foreclosure action by filing a Complaint on June 6, 

2014. The original Complaint contained a single claim 

— for mortgage foreclosure.

On July 11, 2014, [Appellant] filed an Answer to the 

Complaint. In her original Answer, [Appellant] did not 

allege that her signature on the mortgage at issue was 

forged. This action was stayed for lengthy periods of 

time as a result of two bankruptcies filed by

[Appellant], which the court notices:

• In re: Marian J. McQuay, United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, No. 15-15201; and

• In re: Marian J. McQuay, United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, No. 16-181123.

The first bankruptcy (a Chapter 13 converted to a 

Chapter 7) was terminated on June 6, 2016. The 

second bankruptcy (a Chapter 13) was dismissed on 

January 31, 2018 as a result of [Appellant’s] failure to 

make plan payments.

On April 9, 2018, LSF9 was substituted in as the 

plaintiff in this action. On November 27, 2019, with 

leave of court, LSF9 filed an Amended Complaint 

which contained three claims: a claim for mortgage 

foreclosure (Count I) and “alternative” claims for 

equitable subrogation/unjust enrichment (Count II) 

and equitable lien (Count III).

On December 24, 2019, [Appellant] fled an “Answer 

to the Amended Complaint with New Matter and 

Counterclaim.” In her Counterclaim, [Appellant]

alleged that LSF9 is wrongfully prosecuting this action 

and that the action is causing damage to [Appellant’s] 

professional career, future employment, credit 

history, and her marriage. At trial, this was conflated 

to a claim that LSF9 could not show that it was the 

real party in interest. It did show this at trial.
J-S37033-21

- 3 -

On January 6, 2020, LSF9 filed its “Answer to 

Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim.”

. . . .

LSF9 is the current holder of the Loan and Mortgage 

pursuant to an “Assignment of Mortgage” dated 

December 9, 2015 and recorded in the Recorder’s

Office on January 11, 2016 at Document ID No. 

11452617. 

[Appellant] failed to pay the monthly installments of 

principal and interest due since March 1, 2013. 

[Appellant] admitted that she stopped making any 

further payments for the Loan and Mortgage “around 

2013, 2014.” This constitutes a default under the 

terms of the Loan and Mortgage.

[Appellant] also admits that she has not been paying 

the homeowners insurance or the real estate taxes on 

the Property for the last five or six years.

Trial court opinion, 7/16/20 at 2-3, 6 n.1 (subheadings, internal citations, and 

parentheticals omitted).

On July 13 and 14, 2020, the trial court conducted a non-jury trial on 

this matter. On July 15, 2020, the trial court entered its “Decision” in favor 

of LSF9 in the amount of $797,879.67, plus interest. Appellant filed post-trial 

motions on July 16, 23, and August 25, 2020, respectively. Following oral 

argument, the trial court denied all of Appellant’s post-trial motions on 

September 9, 2020.
J-S37033-21

- 4 -

On April 7, 2021, final judgment in this matter was entered in favor of 

LSF9 and against Appellant. This timely appeal followed on April 12, 2021.

1

 

On April 14, 2021, the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

Appellant filed her timely Rule 1925(b) statement on April 30, 2021, and the 

trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on May 4, 2021. 

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

It was an error of law and an abuse of discretion by 

the [trial] court on the following issues:

1. The Court would not dismiss the action on the 

jurisdiction issue.

2. The Court would not dismiss the action when 

[LSF9] failed to meet the Burden of Proof on a 

Valid Mortgage.

3. The Court allowed an amended complaint after 

the Statute of Limitations had run.

4. The Court would not dismissed (sic) the action 

based on the Statute of Limitations.

5. The Court would not dismissed (sic) the action 

because [LSF9] had no standing.

6. The Court would not allow the deposition of 

[LSF9’s] representative.

7. The Court would not allow a jury trial on several 

issues.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s initial appeal at docket no. 1827 EDA 2020 was quashed by this 

Court because it was filed before final judgment was entered. See Per 

Curiam order, 2/16/21.
J-S37033-21

- 5 -

8. The Court allowed the notary to testify to 

speculation.

9. The Court ignored the Tenants by the Entireties 

law.

10. The Court ignored Bankruptcy law.

11. The Court ignored the false statements of 

[LSF9] alleged merger with Bank of America.

12. Must the Courts (sic) dismiss this action when 

the plaintiff failed to join an indispensable 

party?

Appellant’s brief at 2.

Our standard of review of a non-jury trial is well settled:

Our review in a nonjury case is limited to whether the 

findings of the trial court are supported by competent 

evidence and whether the trial court committed error 

in the application of law. We must grant the court’s 

findings of fact the same weight and effect as the 

verdict of a jury and, accordingly, may disturb the 

nonjury verdict only if the court’s findings are 

unsupported by competent evidence or the court 

committed legal error that affected the outcome of the 

trial. It is not the role of an appellate court to pass on 

the credibility of witnesses; hence we will not 

substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. 

Thus, the test we apply is not whether we would have 

reached the same result on the evidence presented, 

but rather, after due consideration of the evidence 

which the trial court found credible, whether the trial 

court could have reasonably reached its conclusion.

Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 189 A.3d 1030, 1036 (Pa.Super. 

2018) (citation omitted), appeal dismissed, 235 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2020).
J-S37033-21

- 6 -

Prior to any consideration of the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must 

first determine whether her brief complies with the Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure. 

It is well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs 

in conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will 

admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the 

appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania

Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 

(Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). 

We will not advocate or act as counsel for an appellant who has not 

substantially complied with our rules. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 

78, 93 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). 

Here, our review reveals that Appellant’s brief falls well below the 

standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Preliminarily, we 

observe Appellant’s “Statement of Issues” is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 

which provides that the statement of the questions involved must state the

issues “with sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to readily 

identify the issues to be resolved....” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) note. 

Instantly, Appellant has set forth 12 separate “issues” for our review, 

comprised largely of general conclusory statements and only one of which is 

phrased as a question. See Appellant’s brief at 2. Appellant’s failure to include 
J-S37033-21

- 7 -

a compliant statement of the questions involved is particularly troubling as 

this requirement defines the specific issues this court is being asked to review. 

Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996).

Appellant’s brief also contains no separate section specifying the order 

or determination sought to be reviewed and no summary of the argument. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2), (6). Although Appellant’s brief does include a 

statement of the case, it is largely devoid of the necessary citations or 

references to the record in violation of Rules 2119(b) and (c) and is interwoven 

with multiple allegations that are not relevant to the factual or procedural 

history of this case. 

Most significantly, our review of Appellant’s sparse, four-page

“Argument” reveals that the majority of her claims are woefully 

underdeveloped or unsupported by any citation to the record or relevant legal 

authority, in violation of Rules 2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that 

the argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are 

deemed pertinent.”).

This Court has long recognized that “[t]he failure to develop an adequate 

argument in an appellate brief may result in waiver of the claim under 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119.” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa.Super. 2018)

(citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted), appeal denied, 

199 A.3d 340 (Pa. 2018). “[A]rguments which are not appropriately 

developed are waived.” Egan v. USI Mid-Atl., Inc., 92 A.3d 1, 17 (Pa.Super. 
J-S37033-21

- 8 -

2014) (citation omitted). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state 

unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by 

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. Failure to do so constitutes 

waiver of the claim.” Giant Food Stores, LLC v. THF Silver Spring Dev., 

L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted), appeal denied,

972 A.2d 522 (Pa. 2009).

Here, the “Argument” section of Appellant’s brief is confusing and 

presents vague, largely conclusory allegations of error. For example, in Issue 

1, Appellant avers that LSF9’s action should have been dismissed “on the 

jurisdiction issue,” but offers nothing in support of this contention other than 

two citations to her reproduced record of statements allegedly made by LSF9 

in completely unrelated litigation. Appellant’s brief at 6. 

Likewise, Appellant baldly contends in Issue 2 that “[LSF9] failed to 

prove a valid mortgage” existed at trial, but even a cursory review of the 

record revealing overwhelming evidence that Appellant executed a note,

mortgage and two loan modifications, that the proceeds of the loan were used 

to refinance and pay off her 2006 mortgage, which Appellant acknowledged 

signing. Id.; see also trial court opinion, 7/16/20 at 9-10.

Additionally, a number of Appellant’s claims are not sufficiently 

developed to warrant review. For example, Appellant’s entire argument for 

Issue 7 consists of four sentences, her entire argument for issue 8 is one 

sentence in length, and Issue 12 is comprised of one short, conclusory 
J-S37033-21

- 9 -

paragraph alleging fraud. See Appellant’s brief at 8-9. Appellant’s 

“Argument” section also does not include a single citation to the certified 

record nor any of the relevant portions of the non-jury trial and hearing 

transcripts. 

Appellant has also failed to include citation to any case law or relevant 

legal authority in support of Issues 1, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. Id. at 6-9. To the 

extent that Appellant’s “Argument” does contain citation to case, we note that 

she fails to conduct a meaningful discussion and analysis of this legal authority 

and how it is applicable to her case. Id.; Issues 2-6, 10.

Given the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we could dismiss her

appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. In re 

Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211. However, based on our foregoing discussion we 

elect to find all of Appellant’s issues waived. See McEwing v. Lititz Mut. 

Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639, 647 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating, “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.”) (citation omitted); Egan, 92 A.3d at 17. 

Accordingly, we affirm the April 7, 2021 judgment entered in favor LSF9

and against Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
J-S37033-21

- 10 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/19/2022