Est. of I. Findlater, Appeal of: McGhie, P.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 17, 2024
• Docket: 3152 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S32029-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ESTATE OF ICYBELLE FINDLATER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: PAULINE WELLINGTON- : MCGHIE : : : : No. 3152 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered December 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2022-X4654

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2024

Pauline Wellington-McGhie (“Pauline”) appeals, pro se, from the order,

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Orphans’ Court

Division, removing her as Executrix of the Will of Icybelle Findlater, Deceased

(“Decedent”), and appointing an independent administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. We

quash.

Due to our disposition, a lengthy recitation of the facts and procedural

history of this matter is unnecessary. In brief, Decedent died on January 25,

2022, leaving a will in which Pauline was named as executrix. Letters

Testamentary were granted to Pauline on December 29, 2022. Thereafter,

Pauline’s sister, appellee Paulette Lennard (“Paulette”), filed a petition to

remove Pauline as executrix. Following a hearing, on December 1, 2023, the

Orphans’ Court issued an order removing Pauline as executrix and appointing

Gregory W. Philips, Esquire, as administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. of Decedent’s estate J-S32029-24

(“Administrator”). Pauline filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a court-

ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal.

Prior to reviewing the merits of Pauline’s appeal, we must address the

application to quash filed by Administrator, in which he asserts that we should

quash the appeal due, inter alia, to numerous deficiencies in Pauline’s brief.

Upon review of Pauline’s brief, we agree that the appeal should be quashed.

Pauline’s pro se brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate

Procedure. The brief does not contain the order in question, a statement of

the scope and standard of review, or an argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

Pauline’s statement of jurisdiction invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1292, a federal statute

governing the jurisdiction of U.S. courts of appeals over interlocutory

decisions. Finally, the brief is devoid of citation to relevant caselaw or

statutory authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

Pauline’s status as a pro se litigant does not relieve her of her obligation

to adhere to the Rules of Appellate procedure.

Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon [an] appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).

Moreover, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments

on behalf of an appellant.” Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.

-2- J-S32029-24

Super. 2014). “[W]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs,

[or] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for

review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v.

Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

Because Pauline’s brief contains no legal argument and fails to comply

with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are unable to engage in meaningful

appellate review. Accordingly, we quash the appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Date: 9/17/2024

-3-