J

- A03016

- 20

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

METRO BANK

v.

DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR., ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET A. HOWARD, AND ALL UNKNOWN HEIRS TO THE ESTATE OF MARGARET A. HOWARD, DECEASED

APPEAL OF: DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR. :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 17 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s): 2014 CV 7968

- MF

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2020
Appellant, Douglass Earl Howard, Jr., appeals pro se from the November
16, 2018 Order entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in this
mortgage foreclosure action . In the November 16, 2018 Order, the trial court

determined that : (1) the July 20, 2016 transfer of real property from the
Estate of Margaret A . Howard by Appellant , as administrator of the Estate, to

himself was invalid ; and (2) Appellant does not have a personal interest in the
property and is , thus, prohibited from proceeding pro se . We dismiss this
appeal.J

- A03016

- 20

- 2

-

The pro se Brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to
conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s Brief
does not include: (1) the full text of the Order in question; (2) accurate
statements of the scope and standard of review ; and (3) a copy of his Rule
1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing required contents for
appellate briefs)

. Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s Brief, while
voluminous, is devoid of any citation to case law or to the record. See
Appellant’s Brief at 11

- 39. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state
unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by
discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon , 824
A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003) (ci tations omitted)

. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs).
Furthermore, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs,
when the briefs are wholly inadequate to pre sent specific issues fo r review , a

Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v.

Gesiorski , 904 A.2d 939, 942

- 43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). See
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in
dismissal of appeal)

. “While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro

se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because [he] lacks legal training. ” Id. at 942 (citation omitted) “ As our
[S] upreme [C] ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to representJ

- A03016

- 20

- 3

-

[himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the

risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing.”

Id. (citation omitted).
In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s Brief
cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant’s Brief, which hamper our
ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A .P. 2101. 1
Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 05/08/2020

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Even if the substantial defects in Appellant’s Brief had not rendered his issues waived, based on our review of the trial court’s November 16, 2018 Memorandum Opinion, we conclude that the issues lack merit as the trial court , upon remand from this Court, properly concluded, that: (1) Appellant’s transfer of the subject property from the estate to himself was invalid, and (2) Appellant, therefore, lacked a personal interest in the property and was prohibited from acting on his own behalf to set aside the sa le of the property

. See Trial Ct. Op., 11/16/18, at 3

- 5.