Moyer, T. v. Moyer, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 8, 2021
• Docket: 1861 EDA 2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A13017-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

TIFFANY T. MOYER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ANTHONY C. MOYER : No. 1861 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic Relations at No(s): No. 964117740

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 8, 2021

Appellant Tiffany T. Moyer appeals from the Order denying her

Complaint for Support after the trial court concluded that she failed to present

credible evidence that she was disabled or unable to work.1 Due to numerous

defects in Appellant’s Brief, we dismiss this Appeal.

The underlying factual and procedural history is not relevant to our

disposition. Because Appellant’s Brief fails to comply with the Pennsylvania

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The parties’ divorce action was filed in Lehigh County and did not include a

support component. The only claim filed in Northampton County was for spousal support. The Order from Northampton County court of common pleas denying spousal support is, thus, a final order. See Asin v. Asin, 690 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 1997) (spousal support order entered in a different county from the divorce proceedings was not companion to the divorce proceedings and therefore, the spousal support order was immediately appealable.). J-A13017-21

Rules of Appellate Procedure, our review is fatally hampered and we are

constrained to find each of her issues waived.

It is well settled that appellate briefs “must materially conform to the

requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure” or risk this

Court’s quashal or dismissal of the appeal. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882

A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also Pa.R.A.P.

2111-2119 (discussing required content of appellate briefs and addressing

specific requirements for each subsection of the brief). “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).

“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently

developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent

discussion, with references to the record[,] and with citations to legal

authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.

2007) (citations omitted). As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id. If

defects in the brief are substantial, the appeal may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Here, Appellant’s brief has glaring errors and omissions in violation of

our Rules of Appellate Procedure that deprive us of the ability to provide

meaningful review of her issues. First, Appellant did not annex her Pa.R.A.P.

-2- J-A13017-21

1925(b) Statement or the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) Opinion to her Brief in

violation of Rule 2111. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11) and (b). Next, Appellant’s

Statement of the Case violates Rule 2117 with its incomplete and self-serving

recitation of the procedural history, inclusion of argument, and failure to

provide appropriate references to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4)

(requiring “[a] closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form,

of all the facts which are necessary to be known in order to determine the

points in controversy, with an appropriate reference in each instance to the

place in the record where the evidence substantiating the fact relied on may

be found.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2117(b) (explaining that the Statement of the Case

shall not include any argument).

In addition, Appellant’s Brief includes one section titled “Summary of

Argument/Argument” in violation of Rules 2117 and 2118, which require a

brief to contain two distinct sections: one section containing a “Summary of

Argument” and a separate section containing the “Argument.” See Pa.R.A.P

2118, 2119. In her “Summary of Argument/Argument” section, Appellant

does not provide separate headings for the five issues she raises and does not

present argument specific to each issue as required by Rule 2119. Rather,

she includes a series of conclusory sentences with no citation to the record,

no citation to relevant case law, and no legal analysis in violation of Rule 2119.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating the argument section “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

-3- J-A13017-21

particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of

authorities as are deemed pertinent.); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (requiring citation to

the record).

Appellant’s failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to

develop her claims with citation to the record and to legal authorities prevents

this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review. Therefore, we

conclude Appellant has waived her issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/08/2021

-4-