J-S43001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GEORGE OSEYEMI

v.

CECILIA OLUGBADE-OSEYEMI 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 719 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 22, 2022

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

No(s): 2014-16944

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2023

Cecilia Olugbade-Oseyemi appeals pro se from the February 22, 2022 

divorce decree entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 

Upon review, we dismiss this appeal. 

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our 

disposition. Appellant’s untimely pro se filing entitled “Appellant’s 

Memorandum (Substitute for a Brief)” (“Brief”)1fails 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.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash 

____________________________________________

1

In the introductory paragraph, Appellant explains that she “files the within 

Appellant’s Memorandum as a substitute for a Brief in Appeal[.]” Appellant’s 

Br. at 1 (unpaginated). Notably, this Court granted Appellant two extensions

of time in which to file her appellate brief, which is nevertheless untimely.
J-S43001-22

- 2 -

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

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In 

particular, “[w]hen the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is 

combined with the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it 

becomes clear that appellant's brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct 

meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 

(Pa. Super. 1996). “[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–

52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “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.” Adams, 882 A.2d at 

498.

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). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate 

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. 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). 
J-S43001-22

- 3 -

Here, in her 45-page Brief, Appellant fails to include a statement of 

jurisdiction, the text of the order or other determination in question, a 

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

involved, and a summary of argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3),

(4), (6). The omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly 

grievous since the statement of questions involved defines the specific issues 

this Court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 

1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).

Instead, Appellant’s Brief is divided into numerous sections entitled 

“Procedural Status,” “Support Calculation,” “Objections,” “Divorce and 

Counterclaim,” “Discovery and Equitable Distribution,” and “Conclusions of 

Law.” See Appellant’s at 1, 24, 37. In these sections, Appellant attempts to 

articulate her grievances against the trial court from 2014 to present but fails 

to do so in any organized manner. In addition, while Appellant includes a few 

boilerplate citations to legal authority in the second-to-last page of her Brief, 

she fails to provide any discussion of the legal authority as it relates to her 

grievances. See Appellant’s Br. at 44 (unpaginated); see also Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a), (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 Appellant’s appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
J-S43001-22

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2023