J-S28039-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

A.M.M. 

v.

J.S.,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1840 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,

Domestic Relations at No(s): 231-SA-2011

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2018

J.S. appeals, pro se, from the child support Order entered following a 

de novo hearing. We dismiss the appeal.

In its Opinion, the trial court summarized the relevant factual and 

procedural history underlying the instant appeal as follows:

A [f]inal Order of [c]ourt entered on January 31, 2017 

directed [J.S.] to pay [A.M.M.] $705.71 per month for support of 

the parties’ two children, with arrears set at $1,521.32[,] due 

immediately.

A Notice of Proposed Modification was sent to [J.S.] on or 

about June 14, 2017, indicating that the Domestic Relations 

Section intended to modify the previous Order to a non-financial 

obligation for the support of the two children, as [J.S.] was 

incarcerated with no known income, assets or employment. [J.S.] 

responded to the Notice on or about June 19, 2017[,] indicating 

that he did not agree to the proposed modification and requesting 

that a conference/hearing be scheduled.

A conference was scheduled for August 4, 2017, after which 

an Order dated August 9, 2017 was entered[,] setting [J.S.’s] 

financial obligation to a numerical value of zero[,] effective March 
J-S28039-18

- 2 -

21, 2017[,] because [J.S.] was unable to pay, had no known 

income or assets, and there was no reasonable prospect that 

[J.S.] would be able to pay for the foreseeable future. Arrears 

were remitted without prejudice as of August 9, 2017.

[J.S.] appealed the Order of August 9, 2017[,] and a de 

novo hearing was scheduled ... on October 19, 2017. After the 

hearing, the [trial court] issued the Order (listed as November 3, 

2017 on the Superior Court docket based upon the mailing date) 

affirming the Order of August 9, 2017[,] and stating that [the trial 

court] would not pursue the issue of the amount of arrears in 

either direction.

[J.S.] filed a Notice of Appeal [] on December 4, 2017 and 

a [court-ordered Concise] Statement [p]ursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) on December 22, 2017.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/8/18, at 1-2.

Initially, we observe that appellate briefs must materially conform to the 

requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2101. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to 

conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 

2005).1 

____________________________________________

1 We recognize that J.S. is proceeding pro se in this matter.

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.

Adams, 882 A.2d at 498 (citations omitted).
J-S28039-18

- 3 -

J.S.’s pro se brief does not meet the following requirements: Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(1) (statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2) and 2115(a) 

(order in question); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (statement of both the scope of 

review and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) and 2116 (statement of 

questions involved); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) and 2117 (statement of the case); 

and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) and 2118 (summary of the argument). Further, in 

his brief, the entirety of which consists of only two pages, J.S. lists bald 

allegations of error. J.S. includes no argument or citations to pertinent legal 

authorities to support his claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that the 

argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are 

deemed pertinent.”); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 

924 (Pa. 2009) (stating that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any 

discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the 

issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is 

waived.”); In re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d 24, 42 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that 

“mere issue spotting without analysis or legal citation to support an assertion 

precludes our appellate review of a matter.”) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted)).

While we are willing to allow some leeway to pro se litigants, we will not 

act as J.S.’s appellate counsel and create legal theories for him. See 

Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404, 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating 

that “[i]t is not this Court’s function or duty to become an advocate for 
J-S28039-18

- 4 -

appellants.”) (citation omitted). The defects in J.S.’s brief are substantial, and 

preclude meaningful review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/20/2018