J-A15028-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LYSBETH W. CLARK

v.

BRUCE L. CLARK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1817 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order November 15, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at 

No(s): CI-1979-May-262

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JULY 11, 2018

Bruce L. Clark (Husband) appeals pro se from the order denying his 

motion for the “Determination of the Obvious Validity of the Defendant’s and 

the Court’s Documented Identical Versions of the Postnuptial Agreement of 

1984.” We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant factual history of this case as 

follows:

Husband and [Lysbeth W. Clark (Wife)] signed a postnuptial agreement on December 27, 1984. As stated in paragraph 

twelve (12) of the Agreement, Wife is entitled to a percentage of 

Husband’s Philadelphia Electric Company pension when Husband 

begins drawing on it. Paragraph 12 also contains a formula to 

determine Wife’s monthly portion of Husband’s pension payout. 

In 1995, Husband retired and Wife began receiving her portion of 

Husband’s pension payment directly from Husband. The amount 

of this payment was $532.30 per month. Husband began 

withholding monthly payments to Wife in October 2015. Husband 

stated the reason he stopped making the payments was because 

Wife interfered with his relationship with their daughter and their 

grandchildren.
J-A15028-18

- 2 -

Trial Court Opinion, 12/15/17, at 4-5 (citations omitted). 

On July 6, 2016, Wife filed a petition to enforce the postnuptial 

agreement and for counsel fees, which the trial court granted on July 8, 2016. 

Between July 14, 2016 and November 30, 2016, Husband filed eight petitions 

challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement, all of which were denied 

by the trial court. On December 14, 2016, the parties came to an agreement 

and executed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order addressing Wife’s 

entitlement to a portion of Husband’s pension payout. However, beginning on 

January 4, 2017 through November 14, 2017, Husband filed another six 

petitions challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial court 

denied each petition. On November 27, 2017, Husband filed a timely pro se

notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying as moot Husband’s most 

recent motion challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement. The trial 

court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on December 15, 2017.

In reviewing Husband’s brief, we are unable to discern the issue or 

issues that Husband wishes this Court to review because Husband has failed 

to include a statement of questions involved. We have recognized that the 

omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly grievous since 

the statement . . . defines the specific issues this court is asked to review.” 

Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1015-16 (Pa. Super. 1993). 

“When the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is combined with 

the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it becomes clear that 
J-A15028-18

- 3 -

appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct meaningful judicial 

review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996).

Additionally, Husband’s brief fails to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. Rule 2111(a) mandates that an appellant’s brief shall

consist of the following matters, separately and distinctly entitled, and in the 

following order:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.

(2) Order or other determination in question.

(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of 

review.

(4) Statement of the questions involved.

(5) Statement of the case.

(6) Summary of argument.

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge 

the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.

(8) Argument for appellant.

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this rule.

(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of the 

matters complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court 

pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no order 

requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.

(12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 

2135(d).
J-A15028-18

- 4 -

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (emphasis added).

Husband’s pro se brief does not contain any of the sections mandated 

by Rule 2111(a). Moreover, Husband’s brief fails to include citations to legal 

authority and record citations. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring that an 

appellant develop an argument with citation to and analysis of relevant legal 

authority); see also Papadoplos v. Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C., 21 

A.3d 1216, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding waiver where the appellants 

advanced only a cursory argument in support of their issue, and failed to cite 

to any pertinent legal authority). Based upon these deficiencies, Husband’s 

claim is waived.1 For this reason, we find no basis upon which to disturb the 

trial court’s order.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

1 Although Husband is proceeding pro se in this appeal, he must still comply 

with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jones v. Rudenstein, 

585 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citing Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 

806, 834 n.46 (1975)). Husband’s pro se representation does not relieve him 

of his duty to properly raise and develop appealable claims. Smathers, 670 

A.2d at 1160. We have explained:

[A]ny layperson choosing to represent 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.

Kovalev v. Sowell, 839 A.2d 359, 367 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation, 

quotation marks and brackets omitted).
J-A15028-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/11/2018