J-A15015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF ISAIAH GEIGER, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
EDWARD BREWINGTON,
Appellee No. 3073 EDA 2014
APPEAL OF: VIVIAN GEIGER
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 3592 November Term, 2011
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY, AND FITZGERALD* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED MAY 13, 2015
Vivian Geiger appeals from the September 5, 2014 order denying her
request to reinstate this lawsuit. Appellant’s brief violates virtually every
rule of appellate procedure applicable to briefs, and we cannot engage in
effective appellate review. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.
This case arose as an action to quiet title wherein Appellant claimed
that Appellee Edward Brewington fraudulently forced her father to transfer
title to real estate into Appellee’s name. The matter was scheduled for trial
on January 30, 2014, when Appellant’s counsel discontinued the action
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15015-15
without prejudice.1 On July 14, 2014, Appellant filed motions to reinstate
the case and disqualify counsel. Those motions were denied, and this appeal
followed.
Appellant’s brief fails to contain a recitation of the facts, a delineation
of the issues raised, an outline of the procedural history, a cogent discussion
of any contention, and any citation to legal authority. The entirety of
Appellant’s brief reads: “I am asking the court to allow me to pursue case on
my own, the attorney Nicholas Clemente withdrew case without my
permission.” Appellant’s brief at (unnumbered page) 1. As we noted in In
re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209-10 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations
omitted):
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This Court 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.
See also In re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d 24, 42 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation
omitted) (noting that “mere issue spotting without analysis or legal citation
to support an assertion precludes our appellate review of a matter”);
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (argument portion of brief must contain discussion and
citation to pertinent authorities). Indeed, Appellant’s brief is so defective
____________________________________________
1
According to the trial court, Appellant was present at the January 30, 2014
proceeding.
-2-
J-A15015-15
that it precludes us from engaging in effective appellate review. In re R.D.,
44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa.Super. 2012) (holding that “when defects in a brief
impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss
the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived”). The fact that
Appellant is pro se does not relieve her of the responsibility to comply with
the rules of appellate procedure. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12
(Pa.Super. 2010) (noting that “pro se status confers no special benefit upon
the appellant”). Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/13/2015
-3-