J-S68023-17

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

EARL BISBING, JR., AND BETH 

BISBING

v.

BRUCE KUGLER AND LORI KUGLER 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 227 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered December 30, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 

9115 of 2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2017

Appellants, Bruce Kugler and Lori Kugler, appeal from the Order 

entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas on December 30, 

2016, granting Beth Bisbing’s Petition for Contempt and Possession of Real 

Estate. We dismiss this appeal.

The facts are not relevant to our disposition.1Instantly, we recognize

that, “appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to 

____________________________________________

1 Briefly, the Kuglers rented a residential property from the Bisbings. On 

May 20, 2016, the court ordered the Kuglers to either purchase the property 

within 60 days, or permit the Kuglers and a real estate agent to access the 

property so that they could prepare a listing agreement to market and sell 

the property. On November 14, 2016, Beth Bisbing filed a Petition for 

Contempt and Possession of Real Estate alleging that the Kuglers failed to 

comply with the May 20, 2016 Order. Following a hearing, the trial court 

granted the Bisbing’s Motion. This appeal followed.
J-S68023-17

- 2 -

the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” 

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations 

omitted). If an appellant “fails to conform to the requirements set forth in 

the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure[,]” we may quash or dismiss 

the appeal. Id.

Our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and our case law 

provide the well-established requirements for preserving a claim for 

appellate review. 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. “Appellate arguments which fail to 

adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are 

not appropriately developed are waived.” Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 912 

A.2d 329, 336 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 

2111-2119 (discussing required content of appellate briefs and addressing 

specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). Where 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.” 

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).

To properly develop an issue for our review, Appellant bears the 

burden of ensuring that his argument section includes references to the 

record and citations of pertinent authorities as well as discussion and 

analysis of the authorities. Id. at 771; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). As this Court has 
J-S68023-17

- 3 -

made clear, we “will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on 

behalf of an appellant.” Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771. 

Appellants’ Brief is woefully inadequate. In the Brief’s Statement of 

Jurisdiction and “Order in Question,” Appellants aver that this Court has 

jurisdiction over this “appeal from a Final Order dated January 27, 2017. . .”

denying Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

2 However, Appellants’ 

representations that they are appealing from the Order denying 

reconsideration contradict their Notice of Appeal, which cites the December 

30, 2016 Order granting Beth Bisbing’s contempt Petition as the Order from 

which they have taken this appeal. Additionally, Appellants’ Brief fails to 

conform to our Rules of Appellate Procedure as it does not contain a copy of 

Appellants’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement or the trial court’s Order. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(10), (11), and (b).

Most significantly, despite having set forth four questions for this 

Court’s review in their Statement of Questions involved, Appellants have not 

divided the argument section of their Brief “into as many parts as there are 

questions to be argued.” See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Instead, Appellants’ have 

presented the four questions together in one, two-page section, which is 

____________________________________________

2 Moreover, it is well-established that orders denying reconsideration are not 

appealable. T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826, 826 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

Rather, the appeal properly lies from the underlying final order itself.
J-S68023-17

- 4 -

replete with mere conclusions of law without any application to the facts of 

this case or the Order on appeal. 

Last, in the section of Appellants’ Brief titled “Law & Argument,” there 

is no substantive argument pertaining to the court’s contempt Order. See

Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. Instead, Appellants baldly assert that the Landlord 

Tenant Act is the “exclusive remedy for a Landlord seeking to vindicate his 

rights.” Id. at 8. 

These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review. Accordingly, 

we dismiss this appeal. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/28/17