J

- S41011

- 20

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

- BOGANS

Appellant

v.

NOEMI CASTRO AND GLORIA CASTRO : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1943 MDA 2019

Appeal fr om the Order Entered November 21 , 2019 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County , Civil Division at No(s): 2018

- CV

- 07698

- DJ

.
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. * MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2020 In this landlord/tenant matter, pro se Plaintiff/Appellant, Angela West

Bogans, appeals from the order denying her request that the trial court hold her former Tenants, Noem i and Gloria Castro, in contempt. Due to Ms. West

Bogans ’ failure to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss her appeal. On August 26, 2018, Ms. West

- Bogans and the Castros entered a lease for certain property in Dauphin County. Discord between the parties ensued on the day the Castros moved into the rental, and their dispute prompted Ms.
West

- Bogans to file this civil actio n to evict the Castros

. Meanwhile, Ms. West

-

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S41011

- 20

- 2

-

Bogans was also a party to a d ivorce case i n Cumberland County against her

now - ex - husband, Tracy Bogans

. Eventually, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County entered an

o rder “completely and globally” settling this landlord/tenant case . Trial Court Order, 6/27/19, at 1. That order included th e following language : “Both sides agree that they will refrain from additional contact/harassment to the other party, including any involvement in any domestic issues.” Id. Next, a contempt proceeding arose in the Cumberland County divorce
case, and th at court held a hearing on that issue on September 25, 2019 . Ms.
West

- Bogans subpoenaed t he Castro s ’ attorney in this matter, John Davidson, Esq., to testify at that contempt hearing

. See N.T., 11/21/19, at 36.
Noemi Castro thereby learned of the Cumberland County hearing and began speaking about it with Mr. Bogans by phone. See id. Noemi , Attorney Davidson, and Mr. Bogans met at the Cumberland County courthouse on the day of the contempt hearing , because Mr. Bogans asked Noemi to testify in Cumb erland County

. See id. Noemi intended to testify that she, Mr. Bogans, Attorney Davidson, and the credit union holding the mortgage for the Dauphin County rental property were not engaged in a conspiracy against Ms. West

Bogans

. However, t he Court of Co mmon Pleas of Cumberland County refused to allow Noemi to testify on Mr. Bogans’ behalf. See id. at 7

- 9. That court found Mr. Bogans in contempt. A week later , Ms. West

- Bogans filed an “Emergency Petition of Contempt with Sanctions ” in Dauphin County. S he therein alleged Noemi ’s attendanceJ

- S41011

- 20

- 3

-

at the Cumberland County contempt hearing was , itself, an act of cont empt against the June 25, 2019 Dauphin County order. After several witnesses testified and the parties made closing arguments , the trial court state d, “t he language in [the] June 27, 2019, Order, I don’t interpret it as preventing someone from being a witness at a trial or a hearing” in another county. Id. at 52. The court thus denied Ms. West

- Bogans’ contempt petition. This timely appeal followed.
Ms. West

- Bogans raises ten appellate issues ; they are as follows : 1. Did the trial court er r in failing to hold [the Castros] in contempt for violating t he June 27 , 2019 Court Order? 2. Did the trial court err in faili ng to act after failing to r equire [the Castros] to pay [Ms. West

- Bogans] ren ts into escrow after [the Castros] exceeded the Federal Poverty Guide lines for IFP November 28, 2019, and allowed [the Castros] to file false statements to the trial court regarding rental payme nts made to [ an] escrow account? 3. Did the trial court err by refusing to amend the court order and refusing to reconsider [the] financial sanction Order issued on April 16, 2019 regarding contempt charges against [the Castros], after [the Castros] and [Attorney David son] viol ated the April 3rd, 2019 Order? 4. Did the trial court err by refusing to enter [Ms. West

Bogans’ Praecipe ] for Default [Judg ment ] , after [the Castros] and [Attorney Davidson] refused to file an answer to [Ms. West

- Bogans’] complaint? 5. Did the trial court err by refusing [Ms. West

- Bogans’] request for “Protective Order” upon discovering [the Castros] and [Attorney Davidson] had inserted themselves in to [Ms. West

- Bogans’] contentious and volatile domestic divorce proceedings in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania?J

- S41011

- 20

- 4

- 6. Did the trial c ourt err by allowing [Attorney Davidson] to remove proceedings from [the] Arbitration Calendar for [a] matter unrelated to the [ landlord/t ena nt ] action between [Ms. West

- Bogans] and [the Castros] ? 7. Did the trial court err by refusing to allow [Ms. West

Bogans] to take action against [ Attorne y Davidson] for going beyond the scope of defending his clients in the [ landlord/t enant ] action and p erpetuating criminal behaviors? 8. Did the trial court err by refusing to correct the Order dated June 27 th , 2019 after [Ms. West

- Bogans] discovered [her] ex - spouse conspirin g with [the Castros] and Attorney [Davidson] ? 9. Did the trial court err by refusing to hold [the Castros] in contempt after [ Noemi ] presented [herself] as [a] witne ss on behalf of ex

- spouse (Tracy Bogans) in Cumberland County divorce contempt proceedings ag ainst ex

- spouse (Tracy Bogans) regarding the property locate d at 1410 Wyeth Street, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania? 10. Did the trial court err by failin g to acknowledge [the alleged fact that the Castors] were making [Ms. West

Bogans’ ] life unbearable?

West

- Bogans’ Brief at 5

- 6. Befo re reaching the merits of those issues, we must ascertain whether
Ms. W est

- Bogans adhered to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Proc edure

. W he ther an appellant followed appellate procedure is a pure question of law for which “ our scope of review is plenary , and the standard of review is de

novo .” Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969, 974 ( Pa. 2018)

. “Briefs . . . shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit,J

- S41011

- 20

- 5

-

otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief . . . of the appellant and are s ubstantial, the appeal . . . may be quashed or dismissed. ” Pa.R.A.P. 2101

. In her brief, a n appellant’s “ argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part

— in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed

— the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. ” Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a). Here, Ms. West

- Bogans’ argument section of her brief is neit her divided
in to ten sections ( on e for each of her ten appellate issues) nor does it contain any citations to legal authority to support her ten claims that the trial court committed legal error. See West

- Bogans’ Brief at 13

- 24. This portion of her brief contains no citation to any case law or statutes , whatsoever . “ It is well settled that a failure to argue and to cite any authority supporting any argument constitutes a waiver o f issues on appeal.” George v. E llis , 911 A.2d 121, 126 ( Pa. Super. 2006)

. Ms. West

- Bogans’ argument section presents no legal analysis of any of the issues on appeal. It is simply a rehashing of her version of the facts and the travails she believes she has faced in her various cases i n Cumberland and Dauphin Counties. Ms. West

- Bogans also recounts her attempt to file criminal charges against various individuals and entities ; however, those details have nothing to do with the denial

- of

- contempt order under review . Thus, from a legal p rospective, she makes no viable argument in support of reversing that order

. “ This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments onJ

- S41011

- 20

- 6

-

behalf of an appellant .” Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co. , 932 A.2d 78, 93 ( Pa. Super. 2007)

. W e may not make Ms. West

- Bogans’ argument for her. Finally, ignorance of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure is
not an excuse, even for a pro se appellant. Wilkins v. Marsico , 903 A.2d 1281, 1284

– 85 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“Although this Court is willing to liberally

c onstrue materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.”). Even the most liberal construction of the
argume nt section of Ms. West

- Bogans’ brief cannot transform from a narrative of events in to a legal argument as to why the trial court misapplied the law without this Court playing both advocate and adjudicator. We may not help
Ms. West

- Bogans form an argument, because she has failed to argue any legal theory on appeal. See Bombar , supra . Any non

- lawye r “ choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding
must . . . assume the risk that [her] lack of expertise and legal tr aining will prove [her] undoing. ” Kovalev v. Sowell , 839 A.2d 359, 367 n.7 ( Pa. Super. 2003)

. Simply stated, b ecause Ms. West

- Bog ans violated Rule 2119( a) and presented no legal argumen t , she forfeits this appeal

. We may not reach the merits of her claims of error

. Appeal dismissed

.J

- S41011

- 20

- 7

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/23/2020