J. A03010/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF KOREAN HARRINGTON, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: GAIL HARRINGTON :
: No. 1319 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order April 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Orphans’ Court No(s).: 2008-X1917
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 28, 2016
Appellant, Gail Harrington, Administratrix of the Estate of Korean
Harrington, appeals from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court
of Common Pleas on April 10, 2015, dismissing her exceptions to the
February 9, 2015 order sustaining the objections filed by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to the first and final
accounting filed by Appellant. We dismiss this appeal.
The facts are not relevant to our determination. Instantly, we
recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant
fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
J. A03010/16
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing
required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements of
each subsection of brief on appeal).
Appellant’s brief, prepared by her appellate counsel Rhonda Hill
Wilson, Esq., is woefully inadequate. Her brief is nearly identical to that filed
in the Orphans’ Court by Milton S. Savage, Jr., Esq., Appellant’s then-
counsel. Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions
involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4); 2116. It does not contain an averment
that she was not ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11) and (d). The argument section is not divided “into as
many parts as there are to be argued,” and contains no headings. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Most significantly, nowhere in her argument does
Appellant assert trial court error. These substantial omissions preclude
meaningful review. Accordingly, we suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss
her appeal. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/28/2016
-2-