J-S19019-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

BRITTANY MAUGER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTIAN J. GENUARDI

Appellant No. 1916 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 13, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Domestic Relations at No(s): 2007-13058

BEFORE: STABILE, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 07, 2015

Appellant Christian J. Genuardi (“Father”) appeals pro se from the 

order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which 

dismissed Father’s support exceptions. We affirm.

Appellant and Appellee Brittany Mauger (“Mother”) are the natural 

parents of a child born out of wedlock on October 7, 2006. Mother filed her 

first petition for custody on June 5, 2007. Although there has been 

extensive litigation over the custody of the child since the initial petition, the 

trial court summarizes the relevant procedural history of this appeal as 

follows:

[Father] filed a petition to modify support in the Domestic 

Relations Office (“DRO”) on December 16, 2013. The 

Support Master issued a recommendation dated March 13, 

2014. On April 4, 2014, [Father] filed exceptions to the 

Support Master’s recommendation. 
J-S19019-15

- 2 -

The court issued two (2) orders dated April 28, 2014. One 

of the orders scheduled [Father’s] support exceptions for a 

hearing on June 11, 2014. The second order was a 

discovery order that directed the parties to bring certain 

documents with them to the hearing on June 11, 2014. 

[Father] failed to comply with the discovery order in that 

he did not bring all of the documents set forth in the 

discovery order. As a result, we dismissed [Father’s] 

support exceptions by order entered on June 13, 2014. 

On July 7, 2014, [Father] filed an appeal from the June 13, 

2014. By order entered on July 18, 2014, we directed 

[Father] to file a concise statement of matters complained 

of on appeal. 

[Father] complied with that order and filed his concise 

statement on August 7, 2014.

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), filed September 4, 2014, at 1-2 (unnecessary 

capitalization omitted).

Father fails to articulate an issue for our review in his pro se brief by 

failing to include a statement of issues presented.1 

____________________________________________

1 However, in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Father preserved the 

following issues:

A. July 27, 2012 Appeals Administrative Law Judge Harry 

C. Taylor ruled that Appellant was and is permanently 

disabled as of 2009 and Appellant remains disabled. 

Appellant has no earning capacity or capability nor does 

Appellant have gross or net income.

B. Appellant is receiving SSI Benefits which is a needs 

based program; Master Coacher chose to ignore the 

rule p.a. code 1910.16-2 E defined by support law 23 

Pa. C.S.A ss 4302 “official Note (1)

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S19019-15

- 3 -

We observe:

“When briefing the various issues that have been 

preserved, it is an appellant’s duty to present arguments 

that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief 

must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with 

references to the record and with citations to legal 

authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 

771 (Pa.Super.2007), appeal denied, 940 A.2d 362 

(Pa.2008) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. 

Whitaker, 30 A.3d 1195, 1197 n. 7 (Pa.Super.2011); 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). We “will not act as counsel and will not 

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Moreover, 

when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct 

meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal 

entirely or find certain issues to be waived.” Hardy, 918 

A.2d at 771.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

C. The March 18, 2014 Masters report also unlawfully 

utilized SSI Benefits for calculation of support without 

consideration of the Self-Support Reserve or any living 

expenses. Rule 1910.16-2E. For unfounded reasons, 

Master Coacher divined an earning capacity of 

$1,919.47 per month for Appellant who is held to an 

unexplainable earning capacity of $2,400 monthly gross 

this calculation is mathematically defective and 

incorrect.

D. Master Coacher also factored costs of childcare provided 

to her in her calculations which Appellant discovered 

were inaccurate/false expenses. Brittany 

Mauger/Plaintiff provided falsified documentation to the 

court and Master Coacher that her monthly cost of 

daycare was $600 when in fact it was $400. This 

exacerbates the miscalculations on the part of Master 

Coacher.

Father’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement (verbatim).
J-S19019-15

- 4 -

In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa.Super.2012), appeal denied, 56 A.3d 398 

(Pa.2012).

“It is the appellant who has the burden of establishing [his] 

entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the trial court is erroneous 

under the evidence or the law. Where the appellant has failed to cite any 

authority in support of a contention, the claim is waived.” Lerner v. 

Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1240 (Pa.Super.2008). Additionally, “[t]his 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.” 

Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 

918 A.2d 747 (Pa.2007) (internal citations omitted).

“Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a 

pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. 

To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal 

proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise 

and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. at 1285.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines 

regarding the required content of an appellate brief:

Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant

(a) General Rule. The brief of the appellant, except as 

otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the 

following matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in 

the following order:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
J-S19019-15

- 5 -

(2) [Order or other determination in question.]

(3) [Statement of both the scope of review and the 

standard of review.]

(4) Statement of the question involved.

(5) Statement of the case.

(6) Summary of the argument.

(7) Argument for the appellant.

(8) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(9) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions 

(b) and (c) of this rule.

(10) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of 

the matters complained of on appeal filed with the trial 

court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no 

order requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement was entered.

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(10) (emphasis added).

Although Father presents us with four pages of argument, he does not 

include a statement of the questions involved in his brief. Further, while his 

argument appears to challenge the Montgomery County Domestic Relations 

Master’s findings of fact and the trial court’s decision to dismiss his 

exceptions as a sanction for his discovery violation, he fails to cite any case 

law in support of this challenge.2 Father’s pro se status does not remedy his 

____________________________________________

2

 We will not act as counsel and develop arguments for Father, who has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief by showing 

that the ruling of the trial court is erroneous under the law. See Lerner, 

supra.
J-S19019-15

- 6 -

briefing deficiencies. See Wilkins, supra. Thus, the claims in Father’s brief 

are waived.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/7/2015