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, DAV ID O. KNECHT, : JANET R. HUBER AND COLDWELL : BANKER HEARTHSIDE RE ALTORS : 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 L inda 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 R ules 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)

(intern al 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

m aterials 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 part s 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 waiv er 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 o f 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: 7/19/2016J. A21017/16

- 4

-