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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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) (citations 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 present specific issues for 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 represent 
J-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 sale of the property. 

See Trial Ct. Op., 11/16/18, at 3-5.