J. A21017/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SUZANNE M. EBBERT, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

BARBARA K. MEST, DAVID O. KNECHT, :

JANET R. HUBER AND COLDWELL :

BANKER HEARTHSIDE REALTORS : No. 3384 EDA 2015

AND LINDA EMERSON :

Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 5, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2012 CV 4999

BEFORE: Bender, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2016

Appellant, Suzanne Ebbert, appeals pro se from the entry of judgment 

in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas on October 5, 2015, following 

confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of Appellees Coldwell Banker 

Hearthside Realtors and Linda Emerson. Because of substantial defects in 

Appellant’s Brief, we dismiss this appeal. 

The facts are not relevant to our determination. Instantly, we 

recognize:

[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially 

conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

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.
J. A21017/16

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing 

required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements of 

each subsection of brief on appeal).

We also note that, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally 

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special 

benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-

252 (Pa. Super. 2003). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id.

Our review of Appellant’s Brief exposes substantial violations of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure: it does not contain a statement of jurisdiction, 

a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of questions 

involved, a statement of the case, or a summary of Appellant’s argument. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1); (3); (4); (6); 2114; 2116; 2117; and 2118. 

Although Appellant’s Brief contains a section labeled “Argument,” it is not 

divided “into as many parts as there are questions to be argued,” and 

contains only one heading, which Appellant labeled “Timelines.” See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The argument section of Appellant’s Brief is completely 

devoid of, among other things, any citation to supporting authority or 

reference to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); (c). “The Rules of 

Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant 

raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. 
J. A21017/16

- 3 -

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) 

(citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b). 

In the instant matter, Appellant has failed to comply in substantial 

respects with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the considerable 

defects, we are unable to perform effective appellate review. See Adams, 

supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from the argument list. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/19/2016
J. A21017/16

- 4 -