J-A15002-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
TARA MOSS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CRAIG MOSS : : Appellant : No. 148 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2015-FC-0000335-03
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2024
Craig Moss (“Father”) appeals pro se from the January 9, 2024 order1
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County that disposed of the
custody complaint filed by Tara Moss (“Mother”) and awarded the parties
shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father supervised
partial physical custody of the parties three children, fourteen-year-old A.N.M,
twelve-year-old X.N.M., and eleven-year-old A.E.M (collectively, “the
Children”). Upon review, we dismiss this appeal due to Father’s failure to
comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) as well as the substantial defects in Father’s
brief.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The order is dated December 29, 2023, but the trial court did not docket it
until January 9, 2024. J-A15002-24
In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural
history of this case and we adopt its detailed recitation for purposes of this
appeal. See Trial Ct. Op., 2/26/24, at 1-14. Briefly, Mother and Father are
married but have been separated for approximately five years. Children have
been living primarily with Mother. On April 5, 2023, Mother filed a complaint
for custody seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of
Children. In her complaint, Mother requested that the court limit Father to
supervised physical custody and order Father to participate in a “Threat of
Harm Evaluation” with a licensed professional. Compl., 4/5/23, at ¶ 17.
Leading up to the custody trial, Father proceeded to file numerous motions
and petitions.
On December 29, 2023, the trial court held a custody trial. On January
9, 2023, after consideration of the evidence and the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 custody
factors, the trial court entered a final order of custody that awarded the parties
shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father supervised
partial physical custody on alternating weekends.
Father timely appealed and filed a contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement, which spanned 30 pages, and attached 15 exhibits. On February
9, 2024, the trial court issued an order finding that Father’s Rule 1925(b)
statement failed to conform with the rule’s requirements that the statement
be “concise.” Order, 2/9/24. The court ordered Father to file a concise
statement in compliance with Rule 1925(b) within ten days. On February 15,
-2- J-A15002-24
2024, Father filed his second Rule 1925(b) statement, which spanned 26
pages, and attached 14 exhibits. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Before we address the merits of Father’s issues on appeal, we consider
whether Father has preserved them for our review.
Rule 1925(b)(4)(i) directs that an appellant set forth only “those errors
that the appellant intends to assert.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i). Rule
1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to “concisely identify each error that the
appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be
raised for the judge.” Id. at 1925(b)(4)(ii) (emphasis added). Issues not
raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b) are waived. Id. at 1925(b)(4)(vii).
“When an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues
sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation
of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.” In re Estate of
Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa. Super. 2000). A non-concise statement
“makes it all but impossible for the trial court to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the issues.” Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(finding that a Rule 1925(b) statement wherein the appellant raised 29 issues
was “extravagant” and thwarted appellate review). See also Kanter v.
Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401-02 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding that the
appellants’ 15-page Rule 1925(b) statements raising approximately 50 issues
and incorporating additional issues 1) frustrated both the trial court and this
Court’s ability to engage in meaningful and effective appellate review process
and 2) “breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing with the court” by
-3- J-A15002-24
pursuing “a course of conduct designed to undermine the Rules of Appellate
Procedure”).
In the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court observed that
Father’s “lengthy” and “unwieldy” statement “was not made in good faith and
fair dealing with [the trial c]ourt and that Father is, thereby, undermining the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Trial Ct. Op., 2/26/24, at 14-15. The court
further opined that “Father’s endless and expansive claims of error” made it
difficult to address his issues and served to “overwhelm” and “diminish” the
quality of the court’s analysis. Id. at 17.
Following our review of Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement, we agree with
the trial court that Father did not raise his issues on appeal in compliance with
Rules 1925(b)(4)(i) and (ii). Accordingly, his issues are waived. Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii).
Moreover, even if we were to overlook Father’s failure to comply with
the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), defects in Father’s pro se brief to this
Court would preclude us from conducting meaningful appellate review.
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. “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
-4- J-A15002-24
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A15002-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
TARA MOSS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CRAIG MOSS : : Appellant : No. 148 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2015-FC-0000335-03
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2024
Craig Moss (“Father”) appeals pro se from the January 9, 2024 order1
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County that disposed of the
custody complaint filed by Tara Moss (“Mother”) and awarded the parties
shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father supervised
partial physical custody of the parties three children, fourteen-year-old A.N.M,
twelve-year-old X.N.M., and eleven-year-old A.E.M (collectively, “the
Children”). Upon review, we dismiss this appeal due to Father’s failure to
comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) as well as the substantial defects in Father’s
brief.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The order is dated December 29, 2023, but the trial court did not docket it
until January 9, 2024. J-A15002-24
In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural
history of this case and we adopt its detailed recitation for purposes of this
appeal. See Trial Ct. Op., 2/26/24, at 1-14. Briefly, Mother and Father are
married but have been separated for approximately five years. Children have
been living primarily with Mother. On April 5, 2023, Mother filed a complaint
for custody seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of
Children. In her complaint, Mother requested that the court limit Father to
supervised physical custody and order Father to participate in a “Threat of
Harm Evaluation” with a licensed professional. Compl., 4/5/23, at ¶ 17.
Leading up to the custody trial, Father proceeded to file numerous motions
and petitions.
On December 29, 2023, the trial court held a custody trial. On January
9, 2023, after consideration of the evidence and the 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 custody
factors, the trial court entered a final order of custody that awarded the parties
shared legal custody, Mother primary physical custody, and Father supervised
partial physical custody on alternating weekends.
Father timely appealed and filed a contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement, which spanned 30 pages, and attached 15 exhibits. On February
9, 2024, the trial court issued an order finding that Father’s Rule 1925(b)
statement failed to conform with the rule’s requirements that the statement
be “concise.” Order, 2/9/24. The court ordered Father to file a concise
statement in compliance with Rule 1925(b) within ten days. On February 15,
-2- J-A15002-24
2024, Father filed his second Rule 1925(b) statement, which spanned 26
pages, and attached 14 exhibits. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Before we address the merits of Father’s issues on appeal, we consider
whether Father has preserved them for our review.
Rule 1925(b)(4)(i) directs that an appellant set forth only “those errors
that the appellant intends to assert.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i). Rule
1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to “concisely identify each error that the
appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be
raised for the judge.” Id. at 1925(b)(4)(ii) (emphasis added). Issues not
raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b) are waived. Id. at 1925(b)(4)(vii).
“When an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues
sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation
of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.” In re Estate of
Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa. Super. 2000). A non-concise statement
“makes it all but impossible for the trial court to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the issues.” Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(finding that a Rule 1925(b) statement wherein the appellant raised 29 issues
was “extravagant” and thwarted appellate review). See also Kanter v.
Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401-02 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding that the
appellants’ 15-page Rule 1925(b) statements raising approximately 50 issues
and incorporating additional issues 1) frustrated both the trial court and this
Court’s ability to engage in meaningful and effective appellate review process
and 2) “breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing with the court” by
-3- J-A15002-24
pursuing “a course of conduct designed to undermine the Rules of Appellate
Procedure”).
In the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court observed that
Father’s “lengthy” and “unwieldy” statement “was not made in good faith and
fair dealing with [the trial c]ourt and that Father is, thereby, undermining the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Trial Ct. Op., 2/26/24, at 14-15. The court
further opined that “Father’s endless and expansive claims of error” made it
difficult to address his issues and served to “overwhelm” and “diminish” the
quality of the court’s analysis. Id. at 17.
Following our review of Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement, we agree with
the trial court that Father did not raise his issues on appeal in compliance with
Rules 1925(b)(4)(i) and (ii). Accordingly, his issues are waived. Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii).
Moreover, even if we were to overlook Father’s failure to comply with
the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), defects in Father’s pro se brief to this
Court would preclude us from conducting meaningful appellate review.
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. “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
-4- J-A15002-24
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). “[N]or 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 Father’s brief to this Court preclude
meaningful appellate review. Father fails to comply with Rule 2117 and
provide a “chronological statement, in narrative form, of all the fact which are
necessary to be known in order to determine the points in controversy,” with
appropriate references to the record. Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4). Instead, Father
merely provides a four-sentence paragraph stating the dates of the custody
complaint, conferences, trial, and notice of appeal.
Moreover, Father’s argument section is incomprehensible. While Father
does cite some relevant boiler-plate law, he 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. It is not the role of this Court to develop
-5- J-A15002-24
an appellant’s legal argument. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915,
925 (Pa. 2009). Once again, this Court will not act as counsel. In re R.D.,
44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012). Thus, even if Father had not waived his
issues by failing to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), the substantial defects in
Father’s brief would preclude our review.
In sum, Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement failed to preserve any issues
for our review. Moreover, even if Father had preserved issues for our review,
the substantial defects in Father’s brief preclude meaningful appellate review
by this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. We direct the prothonotary to strike this appeal from
the June 25, 2024 argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 06/06/2024
-6-