Pennymac Loan Services LLC v. Minatee, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 1139 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A01008-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MAR-LIN MINATEE : : Appellant : No. 1139 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered April 16, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 231100633

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 9, 2025

Appellant, Mar-Lin Minatee, appeals pro se from the April 16, 2025 order

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion

for summary judgment filed by Appellee, Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, in

this mortgage foreclosure action. After careful review, we are constrained to

dismiss this appeal.

The facts of this case are immaterial to our disposition as substantial

defects in Appellant’s brief preclude meaningful appellate review.

Appellate briefs “must materially conform to the requirements” set forth

in our Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we 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. “[A]lthough this Court is willing

to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally J-A01008-26

confers no special benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons,

833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super. 2003).

“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 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); see also Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362,

371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding waiver where appellant failed to cite any

pertinent authority to support his argument). As this Court has made clear,

we “will not act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771

(Pa. Super. 2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor

shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby

v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Here, Appellant has included a singular paragraph of argument in

support of the two questions presented for our review in violation of Rule

2119(a). Furthermore, Appellant’s argument is substantially underdeveloped.

-2- J-A01008-26

He has not included any citations to the record and has failed to provide

citations to any controlling legal authority to support his argument. He has,

thus, failed to apply the law to the facts of his case in a meaningful and

coherent manner as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure and caselaw.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c); B.D.G., 959 A.2d at 371–72. Accordingly,

Appellant’s brief fatally impedes our review.1 We, therefore, dismiss this

appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The prothonotary is directed to remove this case

from the January 6, 2026 argument list.

Date: 12/9/2025

____________________________________________

1 Appellant also neglected to include in his brief the text of the order on appeal

and a statement of the scope and standard of review, and to append to his brief a copy of his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement as required by Rule 2111(a)(2), (3), and (11).

-3-