Costello, K. v. Spillane, M.

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

KEITH COSTELLO AND CHRISTA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COSTELLO : PENNSYLVANIA :

:

v. :

:

:

MARC SPILLANE AND DOTTIE :

SPILLANE : No. 3094 EDA 2025 :

Appellants :

Appeal from the Order Entered October 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2025-08142

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2026 Marc and Dottie Spillane 1 (together, “Appellants”) appeal pro se in this landlord-tenant matter from the judgment entered against them, in favor of Keith and Christa Costello, 2 in the amount of $6,012.75, entered in the magisterial district court on April 10, 2025. We dismiss this appeal.

Appellants initially timely appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County from the judgment entered in the magisterial district court, but the appeal was stricken on May 27, 2025, for failure to properly

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 “Marc” is alternately spelled “Mark” in the record. Similarly, “Dottie” is alternatively referred to as “Dorothy” throughout the record.

2 Christa is referred to as “Krista” throughout the record.

serve the notice of appeal upon the Costellos. On August 11, 2025, Appellants filed a counseled petition to reinstate the appeal. After a hearing, the court dismissed the appeal with prejudice on September 9, 2025. On September 15, 2025, Appellants sought reconsideration. The trial court docket reflects that the court expressly granted reconsideration on September 29, 2025, and thereafter denied reconsideration on October 27, 2025, thereby issuing a final order on October 27.3 Appellants timely appealed but failed to file a court- ordered concise statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.4

____________________________________________

3 We acknowledge that an appeal generally does not lie from an order denying

reconsideration. See, e.g., Cheathem v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 743 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Super. 1999). Nevertheless, after our review, here, the ultimate reconsideration denial followed an express grant of reconsideration, thereby tolling the appeal period. See, e.g., Gardner v. Consol. Rail Corp., 100 A.3d 280, 283 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[I]t is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration, unless expressly granted within the thirty-day appeal period, does not toll the time period for taking an appeal from a final, appealable order.”) (emphasis added); Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3) (providing that timely order expressly granting reconsideration renders notice of appeal, whether filed before or after reconsideration granted, inoperative with respect to order under reconsideration). After our review, we conclude that the October 27 order reaffirmed the September 9, 2025 order that struck the petition to reinstate the appeal, rendering the October 27 order final and appealable. See Haines v. Jones, 830 A.2d 579, 584 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating that appeal properly lies from order reaffirming initial decision where trial court expressly granted reconsideration within thirty days of entry of initial order).

4 We decline to find waiver based on Appellants’ failure to comply with that

order because we conclude that the court’s order did not strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 1925 insofar as it failed to apprise them where they could serve the concise statement in person. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii); (Footnote Continued Next Page)

3

On appeal, Appellants purport to raise an issue of error regarding the court striking the appeal. See Appellant’s Brief at 4. Nevertheless, Appellants failed to include in the brief a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2116 statement of the questions involved, a defect which we may not overlook. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116 (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); see also Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (“In finding that [the] appellant’s brief is inadequate, we particularly highlight the lack of a statement of questions [involved]. As this Court [has] noted[], the omission of a statement of questions [involved] is particularly grievous since the statement defines the specific issues this court is asked to review. When 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.”) (citations, quotation marks, and ellipsis omitted).

Further, we emphasize that Appellants’ omission of a statement of questions involved is exacerbated by their failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 in the argument portion of their brief where they fail to adequately develop arguments and cite to any law or specific location in the certified record in formulating their claim for entitlement to

____________________________________________

see also Commonwealth v. Devilbiss, 351 A.3d 272, 274 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2026).

4

relief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The 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.”) (emphasis added); see also 9795 Perry Highway Mgmt., LLC v. Bernard, 273 A.3d 1098, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) requires that each distinct issue in the argument section of a brief contain such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. When deficiencies in a brief hinder our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we can dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Instantly, we conclude that Appellants’ brief defects prevent our meaningful review and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in its entirety. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”). We recognize that Appellants are proceeding pro se, but that status confers no special benefit as it pertains to compliance with procedural rules. See Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1993)

5

(declining to address issues for failure to include Rule 2116 statement in pro se appellant’s brief); see also Smathers, 670 A.2d at 1160 (same). Accordingly, we find no relief is due.

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 8/27/2026