J

- A09024

- 19

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ROBERT L. ROTH

v.

ANNE M. ROTH

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2907 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered August 20, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2014

- 25752

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MARCH 1 5 , 2019 Anne M. Roth (Wife) appeals pro se in this divorce action. Upon review,

w e are constrained to quash

. On September 25, 2017, Wife and Robert L. Roth (Husband) appeared before an equitable distribution master, who issued a report and

recomme ndation on October 10 , 201 7 . Wife filed exceptions and the trial court scheduled the matter for a de novo hearing on March 23, 2018. The trial court issued an order of equitable distribution on May 15, 2018 and a decree in divorce on August 20, 2018 . Wi fe filed this appeal. Wife’s statement of question involved reads:

“ Equitable Distribution was not fair

. ”
Wife’s Brief at 2 (unnumbered)

.J

- A09024

- 19

- 2

-

Within the five pages of her appellate brief, Wife assails the trial court’s order of equitable distribution, assert ing that there was a “breakdown of the judicial system ” and “gross irregularity of procedure,” claiming that “exhibits from the pre

- trial statement were not considered,” and alleging that the trial court “ignored information on proven economic misconduct , abandonment , [and] emotional and physical abuse. ” See Wife’s Brief at 1

- 5. Wife also states that Husband did not contribute to “upkeep of the marital home,” did not make payments on a student loan, was in contempt of financial orders, and “initiated
PAS 1 to our younger son

. . . which has resulted in an estrangement of my son and grandson

. ” Id. Preliminarily, and with regard to equitable dist ribution of marital property, w e recognize:

A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equi table distribution. Our standard of review when assessing the propriety of an order effectuating the equitable distribution of marital property is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper lega l procedure. We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence. This Court will not find an “abuse of discretion” unless the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised was manifes tly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified record. In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. We me asure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of their property rights.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Although Wife does not define PAS, the logical association is Parental Alienation Syndrome.J

- A09024

- 19

- 3

- Moreover, it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and de cide credibility and this Court will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the evidence. Morgante v. Morgante , 119 A.3d 382, 386

- 87 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).
In stantly , our review of the trial court’s determinations is impeded

. Ra ther than develop a coherent legal argument, it appears that Wife is attempting to re

- litigate equitable distribution with reference to unsupported and legally irrelevant facts, and no citation to case law

. In addition to lacking

a legal argument, Wife ’ s brief is materially noncompliant with Pennsylvania Rule s of Appellate Procedure 21 0 1 et seq

. (prescribing the sections and
content of appellate brief s ). It is well

- settled that a ppellate briefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court
may quash an appeal if the defect s in the brief are substantial. Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 497

– 98 (Pa. Super. 2005);
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) instructs that an appellant’s “ argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have ... such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. ” “ W hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to presentJ

- A09024

- 19

- 4

-

specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v. Sanford , 445 A.2d 149, 150 ( Pa. Super. 19 82). Although we are willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appel lant enjoys no special benefit, and pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the
Court. Commonwealt h v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 251

– 52 (Pa. Super. 2003).
In sum , we are unable to discern a meaningful legal argument in Wife’s brief from which to conduct appellate review . A ccordingly, we quash the appeal

. Appeal quashed . Case stricken from the argument list. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/19