J-S38033-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
MARIE ANGELA OLIVER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT CLARENCE OLIVER : : Appellant : No. 1014 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Domestic Relations at No(s): DR-15-01375, PACSES: 484115503
BEFORE: STABILE, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2024
Appellant, Robert Clarence Oliver, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County on February 21, 2024. Upon
review, we quash Appellant’s appeal for the reasons set forth below.
Briefly, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: This
case arises out of a request for spousal support by Appellee, Marie Angela
Oliver on August 5, 2022. Both Appellant and Appellee have been proceeding
pro se. After various motions were filed, a continuance was granted, and
hearings were held, Appellant filed a motion on April 4, 2023, which sought to
compel responses to his interrogatories and the production of discovery. Tr.
Ct. Op. at 1. The trial court filed an order on May 11, 2023, granting in part
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S38033-24
and denying in part Appellant’s motion. Appellant took an interlocutory appeal
to this Court on May 25, 2023. On July 10, 2023, this Court quashed the
appeal. Tr. Ct. Op. at 2.
On August 11, 2023, Appellant filed in the trial court a petition for
modification of the existing support order. After holding a hearing and
receiving a report and recommendation from the Domestic Relations Section
hearing officer, the trial court entered an order on October 10, 2023, accepting
the recommendations. Appellant filed exceptions to the order, Appellee filed a
response, and oral arguments were held. The court overruled the objections
by order dated February 21, 2024. Tr. Ct. Op. at 2.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court directed Appellant
to file a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant failed to
do so, but because the trial court’s order did not comply with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) in that it did not include the court address, waiver could not be found
on that basis. On May 13, 2024, this Court ordered Appellant to file his concise
statement by May 23, 2024. Appellant complied. The trial court filed its Rule
1925(a) opinion on May 29, 2024. This appeal follows.
Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.
2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter
may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:
[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
-2- J-S38033-24
benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. 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. Id., Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014).
“When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it 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). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments
on behalf of an appellant.” Id. (citation omitted).
Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates
that the brief of the appellant shall consist of the following matters, separately
and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction. (2) Order or other determination in question. (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review. (4) Statement of the questions involved. (5) Statement of the case. (6) Summary of argument. (7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable. (8) Argument for appellant. (9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. (10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this rule.
-3- J-S38033-24
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered. (12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 2135(d).
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Here, Appellant’s brief fails to conform to our rules of procedure in
several material aspects. Specifically, Rule 2114 requires a statement of
jurisdiction which “shall contain a precise citation to the statutory provision,
general rule or other authority believed to confer on the appellate court
jurisdiction to review the order or other determination in question.” Pa.R.A.P.
2114. Appellant’s statement of jurisdiction states in full as follows:
The Jurisdiction for this appeal is the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern
Appellant’s Br. at 7.
Next, Rule 2115 requires the “text of the order or other determination
from which an appeal has been taken or which is otherwise sought to be
reviewed [] be set forth verbatim immediately following the statement of
jurisdiction.” Pa.R.A.P. 2115(a) (emphasis added). The section of Appellant’s
brief titled “Order or Other Determination in Question” states in full as follows:
The order in question was issued in the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Section, issued February 21, 2024
This was pursuant to a recommendation issued by Master Betz on October 11, 2023
Appellant’s Br. at 8.
-4- J-S38033-24
Further, Appellant’s “Statement of the Issues Presented,” is required to
include “an answer stating simply whether the court or government unit
agreed, disagreed, did not answer, or did not address the question” and must
be “expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116.
Here, Appellant asks nine bald questions and fails to suggest the lower court’s
answers to each. Appellant’s issues are reproduced, verbatim, as follows:
Issue I What is the required scope of judicial inquiry and litigant discovery for all individuals, but especially those spouses who are self- employed?
Issue II What is required in a hearing to fulfill a requirement that decisions be based on evidence, testimony and the law?
Issue III What are the requirements for collateral estoppel in a de-novo hearing?
Issue IV When a court determines that a separation has occurred, is the court required to ascertain the intent of the parties?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S38033-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
MARIE ANGELA OLIVER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT CLARENCE OLIVER : : Appellant : No. 1014 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Domestic Relations at No(s): DR-15-01375, PACSES: 484115503
BEFORE: STABILE, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2024
Appellant, Robert Clarence Oliver, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County on February 21, 2024. Upon
review, we quash Appellant’s appeal for the reasons set forth below.
Briefly, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: This
case arises out of a request for spousal support by Appellee, Marie Angela
Oliver on August 5, 2022. Both Appellant and Appellee have been proceeding
pro se. After various motions were filed, a continuance was granted, and
hearings were held, Appellant filed a motion on April 4, 2023, which sought to
compel responses to his interrogatories and the production of discovery. Tr.
Ct. Op. at 1. The trial court filed an order on May 11, 2023, granting in part
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S38033-24
and denying in part Appellant’s motion. Appellant took an interlocutory appeal
to this Court on May 25, 2023. On July 10, 2023, this Court quashed the
appeal. Tr. Ct. Op. at 2.
On August 11, 2023, Appellant filed in the trial court a petition for
modification of the existing support order. After holding a hearing and
receiving a report and recommendation from the Domestic Relations Section
hearing officer, the trial court entered an order on October 10, 2023, accepting
the recommendations. Appellant filed exceptions to the order, Appellee filed a
response, and oral arguments were held. The court overruled the objections
by order dated February 21, 2024. Tr. Ct. Op. at 2.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court directed Appellant
to file a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant failed to
do so, but because the trial court’s order did not comply with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) in that it did not include the court address, waiver could not be found
on that basis. On May 13, 2024, this Court ordered Appellant to file his concise
statement by May 23, 2024. Appellant complied. The trial court filed its Rule
1925(a) opinion on May 29, 2024. This appeal follows.
Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.
2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter
may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:
[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
-2- J-S38033-24
benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. 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. Id., Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014).
“When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it 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). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments
on behalf of an appellant.” Id. (citation omitted).
Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates
that the brief of the appellant shall consist of the following matters, separately
and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction. (2) Order or other determination in question. (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review. (4) Statement of the questions involved. (5) Statement of the case. (6) Summary of argument. (7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable. (8) Argument for appellant. (9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. (10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this rule.
-3- J-S38033-24
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered. (12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 2135(d).
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Here, Appellant’s brief fails to conform to our rules of procedure in
several material aspects. Specifically, Rule 2114 requires a statement of
jurisdiction which “shall contain a precise citation to the statutory provision,
general rule or other authority believed to confer on the appellate court
jurisdiction to review the order or other determination in question.” Pa.R.A.P.
2114. Appellant’s statement of jurisdiction states in full as follows:
The Jurisdiction for this appeal is the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern
Appellant’s Br. at 7.
Next, Rule 2115 requires the “text of the order or other determination
from which an appeal has been taken or which is otherwise sought to be
reviewed [] be set forth verbatim immediately following the statement of
jurisdiction.” Pa.R.A.P. 2115(a) (emphasis added). The section of Appellant’s
brief titled “Order or Other Determination in Question” states in full as follows:
The order in question was issued in the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Section, issued February 21, 2024
This was pursuant to a recommendation issued by Master Betz on October 11, 2023
Appellant’s Br. at 8.
-4- J-S38033-24
Further, Appellant’s “Statement of the Issues Presented,” is required to
include “an answer stating simply whether the court or government unit
agreed, disagreed, did not answer, or did not address the question” and must
be “expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116.
Here, Appellant asks nine bald questions and fails to suggest the lower court’s
answers to each. Appellant’s issues are reproduced, verbatim, as follows:
Issue I What is the required scope of judicial inquiry and litigant discovery for all individuals, but especially those spouses who are self- employed?
Issue II What is required in a hearing to fulfill a requirement that decisions be based on evidence, testimony and the law?
Issue III What are the requirements for collateral estoppel in a de-novo hearing?
Issue IV When a court determines that a separation has occurred, is the court required to ascertain the intent of the parties?
Issue V When is the court required to make inquiries as to evidentiary substantiations of a disqualifying claim made during trial?
Issue VI See Issue V [Type the Issues Presented for Review. The statement of the issues shall be a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief.]
Issue VII Does the court have an obligation to implicate duration of support orders when there is no divorce action pending.
Issue VIII
-5- J-S38033-24
Should the court implicate actions undertaken or eschewed during the period after separation in determining the likelihood that one spouse or another instigated separation maliciously?
Issue IX Should the court base spousal income on testimony that is contradictory?
Appellant’s Br. at 9. These issues fail to present reviewable questions within
the terms and circumstances of this particular case as required by Pa.R.A.P.
2116.
Next, a “Statement of the Case,” is required to contain
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.
Here, Appellant’s “Statement of the Case” section of his brief merely
lists, in incomplete sentences, twenty-four docket entries in this matter. There
are no citations to the record, and only eight of the entries include the date of
the filing or proceeding. See Appellant’s Br. at 10-11. Appellant’s “Statement
of the Facts” contains a total of forty-one words in mostly incomplete
sentences, with no citations to the record or dates. See Appellant’s Br. at 12.
Finally, Rule 2118 governs the “Summary of Argument” section and Rule
2119 governs the “Argument” section of the brief. Specifically, Rule 2119
requires that the argument section
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,
-6- J-S38033-24
followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Here, Appellant failed to include a “Summary of the Argument,” and his
argument section is inadequate and underdeveloped. He divides the argument
section into two parts; the first section addresses issue one and the second
section combines issues two through nine into one heading, in violation of Rule
2119. See Appellant’s Br. at 13, 14. The remainder of Appellant’s argument
section includes nothing more than pasted statutes and caselaw. Appellant
provides a list of “Relevant Opinions” followed by a one-sentence summary of
what the case discusses. See Appellant’s Br. at 18. He also pastes quotes from
cases with no citation to the case, court, or page from which it originated.
“Citations of authorities in briefs shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126
governing citations of authorities.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).
It is well settled that a pro se appellant is not entitled to any advantage
due to their lack of legal training, and must comply with the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496,
498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that “any person choosing to represent himself
in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”). The defects in Appellant’s
brief are substantial and preclude meaningful review. Accordingly, we quash
the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-7- J-S38033-24
Date: 11/20/2024
-8-