McGinniss, S. v. Hirsch, B.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 1313 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A24006-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

SHANNAN MCGINNISS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRIAN HIRSCH : : Appellant : No. 1313 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered April 29, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-60222

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2025

Brian Hirsch (Father) appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, granting Shannan McGinniss

(Mother) primary legal and physical custody of their minor child (Child) (born

7/2015), and granting Father supervised visitation. We quash this appeal.

This protracted custody litigation began when Child was seven months

old. Child, now aged nine, currently resides with Mother in Yardley, Bucks

County. Father resides in New Jersey. Pursuant to a June 18, 2018 court

order, Mother was granted primary physical custody of Child, and Father was

granted partial physical custody of Child. The order provided the parties share

legal custody. Thereafter, Mother filed a petition for modification of custody

and a petition for contempt, and Father filed a counter-petition for contempt.

On October 7, 2020, the court held a hearing on these petitions. The court

found Father in willful contempt of the 2018 custody order, granted Mother J-A24006-24

primary physical and sole legal custody of Child, and granted Father

supervised visitation.

Thereafter, both parties filed petitions for contempt, Father filed a

petition for modification of custody, and Father filed a petition for recusal.

Following a two-day hearing, the court denied Mother’s petition for contempt,

granted Father’s petitions for contempt, and denied Father’s petition for

modification of custody. The court continued Mother’s primary physical

custody subject to Father’s periods of supervised visitation, and continued

Mother’s sole legal custody.

On May 7, 2024, Father filed a notice of appeal. Father failed to file a

Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

contemporaneously with his notice of appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2). Father ultimately filed his statement on May 14, 2024. 1

Father raises eleven issues on appeal. However, due to Father’s failure

to substantially comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure, we quash this appeal. We begin by emphasizing the

clear mandate of 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

____________________________________________

1 The trial court characterized Father’s statement as “hardly coherent[,]” “better considered an angry diary entry[,]” and “lack[ing] clarity[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/24, at 4. Nonetheless, the court explained its reasoning for denying Father’s petitions. Id. at 8-16.

-2- J-A24006-24

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (emphasis added). “When 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.”

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

2006) (citation omitted).

Further, this Court has explained that we “will not consider the merits

of an argument, which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure

to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal.” In

re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012). See

Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1982). An appellate

brief must support the claims presented with citation to and discussion of

pertinent legal authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c).

Here, Father’s brief contains no Argument section. Father’s brief

does include a Summary of the Argument section, however, that section

begins with an irreverent remark aimed toward “the court,” 2 and continues

with a litany of complaints, devoid of argument or citation to any legal

authority. “[W]here 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.” Umbelina

v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011), quoting In re W.H., 25 A.3d ____________________________________________

2 See Appellant’s Brief, at 12 (“Why should the court even give a sh--?”).

-3- J-A24006-24

330, 339 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Our rules of

appellate procedure are explicit that the argument contained within a brief

must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed

pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “[W]here 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. It is not the obligation of [the appellate court] to formulate

[the a]ppellant’s arguments[.]” Wirth v. Com., 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa.

2014) (emphasis added). See Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556,

584 (Pa. Super. 2014) (this Court will not act as counsel and will not develop

arguments on behalf of appellant); J.J. DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval

Assoc., 56 A.3d 402, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same).

[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. [See] Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(citations omitted).

We conclude, therefore, that Father’s failure to develop his issues on

appeal with any argument or citation to relevant authorities constitutes waiver

of his claims. See Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(explaining arguments not appropriately developed with citation to relevant

-4- J-A24006-24

authority are waived on appeal). Father’s complaints fail to provide this Court

with any meaningful argument and, thus, this Court is precluded from

meaningful review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2119(a)-(c); see also Krauss,

supra. Accordingly, we quash this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal quashed.

Date: 2/3/2025

-5-