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. Appellan t’s untimely pro se filing entitled “Appellant’s Memorandum (Substitute for a Brief ) ” (“ Brief ”) 1 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. 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 g ranted 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
g rievous since the statement of questions involved de fines the specific issues
this C ourt is asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris , 629 A.2d 1014,
10 16 (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 201 4 to present but fails
to do so in an y organized manner. In addition , while Appellant includes a few boilerplate c itation s to le gal 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 A ppellant’s Br. at 44 (unpaginated); s ee 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