Arangio, C. v. Arangio, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 3143 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A20034-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

CHARLES ARANGIO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : LUANNE ARANGIO, WAYNE LAW AND : No. 3143 EDA 2023 ESTATE OF ANNA ARANGIO :

Appeal from the Order Entered November 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2023-00062

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 31, 2024

Appellant, Charles Arangio, appeals pro se from the November 7, 2023

order entered in the Northampton Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his

complaint with prejudice. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal due the

substantial defects in Appellant’s brief.

A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary

to our disposition. Briefly, Appellant and Luanne Arangio are siblings who are

involved in an ongoing dispute regarding the estate of their mother, Anna

Arangio, for which Luanne Arangio is the named executor and Appellant is a

beneficiary. On January 5, 2023, Appellant pro se filed a 15-count complaint

against Luanne Arangio both individually and in her capacity as the Executor

of the Estate of Anna Arangio (“Appellees”), which, inter alia, re-raised issues J-A20034-24

that had been resolved in prior probate and ejectment actions.1 On January

30, 2023, Appellees filed preliminary objections and a supporting brief.

Appellant filed a response with no supporting legal memorandum.

On November 7, 2023, the trial court entered an order that sustained

Appellees’ preliminary objections and dismissed Appellant’s complaint with

prejudice. Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal. Both Appellant and the trial

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant asks us to determine “whether the [c]ourt erred in granting

the P.O.’s and dismissing the case with prejudice[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 6

(unpaginated). However, due to substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we

are unable to do so.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash

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

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[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).

____________________________________________

1 The complaint contained claims of Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Implied Contract, Property Maintenance, Undue Influence, Conspiracy, Slander, Libel, Theft, Possession of Stolen Property, Violating HIPAA, Practicing Medicine Without a License, Intentional or Negligent Abuse of Process of a Lawsuit, Intentional or Negligent Inflection of Emotional Distress, and Punitive Damages.

-2- J-A20034-24

“The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state unequivocally that each

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of

pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing

requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument

requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly raised and

developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific

issues for review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch

Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citation omitted). 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). 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).

The substantial defects in Appellant’s brief to this Court preclude

meaningful appellate review. In his statement of the case, Appellant fails to

provide a closely condensed chronological statement including appropriate

references to the record, and, instead, airs grievances from 2018 to present.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4). Appellant’s argument section is substantially

underdeveloped and, likewise, fails to contain references to the record. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c). Most fatal to our review is the fact that Appellant fails

-3- J-A20034-24

to provide citation to any legal authority to support his arguments and,

accordingly, fails to apply the law to the facts of this case in a meaningful and

coherent manner as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure and case

law. Accordingly, Appellant’s brief fatally hampers our review. We, thus,

dismiss this appeal.2

We direct the prothonotary to strike this appeal from the August 28,

2024 argument list.

Appeal dismissed. Appellees’ motion to quash denied as moot. Case

stricken from argument list.

Date: 7/31/2024

2 In light of our disposition, we deny as moot Appellees’ April 15, 2024 Motion

to Quash/Dismiss Appeal for Appellant’s failure to file a reproduced record.

-4-