J.A13042/14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

OBIANUJU S. OLIVER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

STACEY L. OLIVER, : 

 : No. 2759 EDA 2013 

 Appellee : 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 6, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Domestic Relations No(s).: 10-09243; PACSES No. 510111750 

BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

Appellant, Obianuju S. Oliver, (“Wife”) appeals pro se from the order 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas awarding her 

spousal and child support.1

 Wife contends that alimony should be awarded 

to her based upon the Federal Poverty Guidelines for her household size of 

two pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 

1183(a), also known under Section 213A of the INA as form I-864. Wife has 

also filed with this Court an application to file an amended brief and an 

 

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

1 Appellee, Stacey L. Oliver, (“Husband”), also proceeds pro se in this 

appeal. 
J. A13042/14 

- 2 - 

amended brief. We grant Wife’s application, accept the amended brief, and 

affirm. 

 On May 21, 2012, the Master in Support entered a proposed order of 

support which provided that Husband shall pay child support in the amount 

of $768.31 per month and spousal support in the amount of $738.58 per 

month, plus $50.00 monthly toward arrears.2

 On September 6, 2013, the 

trial court entered the following order: 

Both parties present pro se. The court heard from both 

parties on [Husband’s] exceptions. [Husband’s] 

exceptions are denied. The court heard from both parties 

on [Wife’s] exceptions. [Wife’s] exceptions are denied.

Proposed order entered as final support order. 

Order, 9/6/13. This timely appeal followed.3 Wife filed a court-ordered 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal and the trial 

court filed a responsive opinion. 

 On October 28, 2013, this Court entered the following per curiam rule 

to show cause order: 

 This appeal has been taken from the September 6, 

2013 order in support. It is unclear if the spousal support 

portion of this order is final and appealable. Generally, an 

 

2

 The facts are unnecessary for our disposition. 

3

 The support order was entered on September 6, 2013. The thirtieth day 

thereafter was Sunday, October 6, 2013. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Wife’s 

notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2013 and was therefore timely. See

1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (providing that when last day of any period of time 

referred to in any statute falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such 

day shall be omitted from computation). 
J. A13042/14 

- 3 - 

appeal only lies from a final order. See Pa.R.A.P. 

341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that disposes of all 

claims and of all parties); Leister v. Leister, 684 A.2d 

192 (Pa. Super. 1996) (. . . spousal support [is not] 

appealable until all economic issues have been resolved); 

Fried v. Fried, 501 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1985) (issues are 

reviewable after entry of divorce decree and resolution of 

all economic issues). Instantly, it is unclear if there has 

been a divorce compliant [sic] filed. If a divorce compliant 

[sic] has been filed, it is unclear if a divorce decree has 

been entered and if all economic claims have been 

resolved. 

 Accordingly, [Wife] is directed to show cause . . . as to 

the appealability of the spousal support portion of the 

order. . . . 

Order, 10/28/13. 

 Wife filed a response to the order and argued that the spousal support 

order was appealable pursuant to the INA. Wife averred that she “is 

concerned that errors made in the trial court, if not corrected in the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania, would be made a final order during the divorce 

proceedings. [Wife] is not aware of how long the divorce proceedings will 

last.” Wife’s Show Cause as to Appealability of Support Order, 11/1/13, at 4 

(unpaginated). 

On November 4, 2013, this Court entered the following per curiam

order: 

In accordance with the rule to show cause order dated 

October 28, 2013 and in consideration of your response 

that there are still outstanding economic issues to be 

resolved in the parties’ divorce case; solely the issues 

regarding child support will be referred to the panel 

assigned to decide the merits of this appeal. . . . 
J. A13042/14 

- 4 - 

Order, 11/4/13 (emphasis added). 

Wife raises the following issues on appeal: 

1. Is [Wife] entitled to retroactive Spousal Support starting 

June 22, 2010? . . . 

2. Did the trial court erred [sic] in counting [Wife’s]

“earning capacity” as “income” against [Husband’s] 

support obligations? . . . 

3. Did the trial court erred [sic] by not reviewing [Wife’s] 

annual income[?] 

4. Did the trial court erred [sic] by not ordering [Husband] 

to pay more as the Child’s Expenses increase? . . . 

5. How does [Husband’s] I-864 Affidavit of Support 

obligation affect Divorce Settlements? . . . 

6. Did the trial court erred [sic] when Judge Peter Rodgers 

grant [sic] [Wife’s] Exceptions and Judge Elizabeth Jackson 

denied same exceptions? . . . 

 

Wife’s Brief at 6-8.

 As stated above, Wife also filed an application to amend her brief, 

certifying the “Amended Brief contains only matters not being resolved at 

the Divorce Court.” Wife’s Mot. to Amend Appellant’s Brief, 5/6/14, at 1. 

The amended brief does not contain a statement of the questions involved 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 

 As a prefatory matter we consider whether Wife has waived the issue 

of whether “the trial court erred by not ordering [Husband] to pay more as 

the Child’s Expenses increase.” See Wife’s Brief at 7. 
J. A13042/14 

- 5 - 

The “failure to develop an argument with citation to, and analysis of, 

relevant authority waives that issue on review.” Harris v. Toys "R" UsPenn, Inc., 880 A.2d 1270, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2005). This Court has stated: 

[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must 

materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.

2101. . . . Although this Court is willing to liberally 

construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status 

confers no special benefit upon the appellant. 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. 

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some citations 

omitted). An appellant abandons an issue by not addressing it in the 

argument section of the brief. In re K.K., 957 A.2d 298, 303 (Pa. Super. 

2008) (citing In re Jacobs, 936 A.2d 1156, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding 

issue waived because appellant did not address it in argument section of 

appellate brief)). 

 Wife did not address the issue of child support in the argument section 

of her brief, reply brief, or amended brief. Therefore, we find the issue 

abandoned. See id.; Harris, 880 A.2d at 1279. This Court previously 

notified Wife we will not hear any spousal support issue. 

Order affirmed. Application to file amended brief granted and brief 

accepted. 
J. A13042/14 

- 6 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/16/2014