J-A07009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LOUISE A. CARAFA

v.

FRANK N. CARAFA 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2083 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered August 3, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at 

No(s): CV-2009-015174

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2023

Appellant, Frank N. Carafa (“Husband”), appeals the August 3, 2022 

order1 entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed 

his June 6, 2022 Petition for Special Relief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a)2for 

lack of jurisdiction due to a pending appeal before this Court. Husband’s brief 

includes substantial defects that preclude meaningful appellate review and, 

therefore, we dismiss this appeal.3

____________________________________________

1 The order is dated August 2, 2022, but the court did not docket the order 

until August 3, 2022.

2 Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, 

after an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial 

court or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter.” 

3 Wife’s March 8, 2023 Motion for Leave of Court to File Sur Reply Brief is 

granted and we accept the Sur Reply Brief filed on March 8, 2023. 
J-A07009-23

- 2 -

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary 

to our disposition. Briefly, Husband and Appellee, Louise A. Carafa (“Wife”), 

have been involved in highly contentious divorce proceedings since 2009 when 

the parties separated after thirty-five years of marriage, and Wife filed a 

divorce complaint. The trial court entered an equitable distribution order on 

November 16, 2016, and a final divorce decree on June 27, 2017. On April 

10, 2019, Wife filed a Petition to Distribute the Marital Estate and, on June 26, 

2019, the court entered an Agreed Order for Distribution. 

On April 8, 2021, Husband filed a serial Petition for Special Relief 

contesting the equitable distribution order. After a hearing, the trial court 

denied Husband’s petition and Husband timely appealed. On June 6, 2022, 

Husband filed the instant Petition for Special Relief, once again contesting the 

equitable distribution order and alleging fraud. The court dismissed the June 

6, 2022 petition pursuant to Rule 1701(a) for lack of jurisdiction and Husband 

timely appealed, raising four issues for this court’s review.

As stated above, Husband’s brief fails to comply with the briefing 

requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable 

to conduct meaningful appellate review of the multiple issues that he raises.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash 

or dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth 

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “The Rules 

of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant 
J-A07009-23

- 3 -

raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” 

Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation 

omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing requirements for appellate 

briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate 

briefs). “When 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). It is 

axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed 

with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(c). As 

this Court has made clear, we “will not act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth 

v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). “We shall not develop an 

argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to 

support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 

2018). 

Husband’s brief fails to comply with our rules of appellate procedure and 

the substantial defects fatally hamper our ability to provide meaningful review. 

Husband includes a “Statement of the Scope and Standard of Review” that is 

both incorrect and unsupported by citation to legal authority. Husband’s Br. 

at 6. In his “Order in Question” section, Husband includes a previous order 

from June 14, 2022, rather than the August 3, 2033 order that he purports to 

appeal. Id. at 5. Similarly, in his “Statement of Case” section, Husband 

references the incorrect order by stating, “this is an appeal from an order 
J-A07009-23

- 4 -

dated June 14, 2022.” Id. at 8. Moreover, Husband fails to include any 

citations to the voluminous record, that spans well over ten years, as required 

by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(4). Finally, Husband has failed to include a summary of 

argument section as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2118.

Most significantly, however, despite having raised four questions for our 

review, Husband has failed to address each issue as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a). Section 2119 provides, inter alia, that each issue raised should be 

addressed in the argument section under its own heading with discussion of 

relevant law as it pertains to the issues raised in the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a). Husband has utterly failed to do this. Instead, he has provided four 

short paragraphs with no headings, no citations to the record, and no analysis 

of the facts and law as they relate to the issues he has raised and the 

boilerplate legal authority he cites in his “Argument” section.4 See Husband’s 

Br. at 12; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b) (requiring discussion and 

citation of authorities that are deemed pertinent to an appellant’s argument).

These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review. Accordingly, 

we are constrained to dismiss Husband’s appeal.

____________________________________________

4 Notably, none of the questions posed in the “Statement of Questions 

Involved” section raise a claim that the trial court erred in its application of 

Pa.R.A.P. 1701 or in its dismissal of the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Instead, they raise claims that the trial court’s findings are not supported by 

the record, the trial court erred in awarding counsel fees, and the trial court 

denied Husband his constitutional right to litigation. They are identical to the 

questions that Husband raises at Docket No. 1622 EDA 2022, a separate 

appeal before this court, and appear to raise issues relating to that appeal. 
J-A07009-23

- 5 -

Appeal dismissed. Wife’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Sur Reply 

Brief is granted. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/10/2023