Court Opinion

ID: 9353708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 17:15:12.321605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:58.764273
License: Public Domain

J-S43001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    GEORGE OSEYEMI                              :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
    CECILIA OLUGBADE-OSEYEMI                    :
                                                :
                       Appellant                :    No. 719 EDA 2022

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 22, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 2014-16944

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:                              FILED JANUARY 12, 2023

       Cecilia Olugbade-Oseyemi appeals pro se from the February 22, 2022

divorce decree entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.

       A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition.      Appellant’s    untimely      pro   se   filing   entitled   “Appellant’s

Memorandum (Substitute for a Brief)” (“Brief”)1 fails to comply with the

briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore,

unable to conduct meaningful appellate review.

       Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash
____________________________________________

1 In the introductory paragraph, Appellant explains that she “files the within
Appellant’s Memorandum as a substitute for a Brief in Appeal[.]” Appellant’s
Br. at 1 (unpaginated). Notably, this Court granted Appellant two extensions
of time in which to file her appellate brief, which is nevertheless untimely.
J-S43001-22

or dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101.            In

particular, “[w]hen the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is

combined with the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it

becomes clear that appellant's brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct

meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160

(Pa. Super. 1996).     “[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special

benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–

52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “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.

       It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be

developed with citation to the record and relevant authority.          Pa.R.A.P

2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. As this Court has made clear, we “will not

act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.

2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour

the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189

A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

                                     -2-
J-S43001-22

      Here, in her 45-page Brief, Appellant fails to include a statement of

jurisdiction, the text of the order or other determination in question, a

statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions

involved, and a summary of argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3),

(4), (6). The omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly

grievous since the statement of questions involved defines the specific issues

this Court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014,

1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).

      Instead, Appellant’s Brief is divided into numerous sections entitled

“Procedural Status,” “Support Calculation,” “Objections,” “Divorce and

Counterclaim,” “Discovery and Equitable Distribution,” and “Conclusions of

Law.” See Appellant’s at 1, 24, 37. In these sections, Appellant attempts to

articulate her grievances against the trial court from 2014 to present but fails

to do so in any organized manner. In addition, while Appellant includes a few

boilerplate citations to legal authority in the second-to-last page of her Brief,

she fails to provide any discussion of the legal authority as it relates to her

grievances.   See Appellant’s Br. at 44 (unpaginated); see also Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a), (b) (requiring discussion and citation of authorities that are deemed

pertinent to an Appellant’s argument).

      These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review. Accordingly,

we are constrained to dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

      Appeal dismissed.

                                      -3-
J-S43001-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/12/2023

                          -4-