J-S28011-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
EMILY TAYLOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
LORETTA WARREN,
Appellee No. 973 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order of May 26, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): AR 15-2036
BEFORE: OLSON, MOULTON and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 3, 2017
Appellant, Emily Taylor, appeals pro se from the order entered on May
26, 2016. We dismiss the appeal.
The factual background and procedural history of this case are as
follows. On August 13, 2014, Loretta Warren (“Warren”) pled guilty to
stealing Appellant’s car. Thereafter, Appellant filed a complaint against
Warren in Magisterial District Court 05-2-06 seeking to recover for damage
done to the car when it was stolen. On March 30, 2015, the Magisterial
District Court entered judgment in favor of Appellant and against Warren in
the amount of $1,800.00 plus costs. Warren appealed that decision to the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. On October 1, 2015, a board
of arbitrators found in favor of Warren and against Appellant. Warren,
believing she lost before the board of arbitrators, appealed that ruling and
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
J-S28011-17
sought a trial de novo before a commissioned judge of the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County.
Both Warren and Appellant appeared at a hearing before the trial court
on May 26, 2016. The trial court explained to Warren that she prevailed
before the board of arbitrators. The trial court then entered an order
permitting Warren to withdraw her appeal. Appellant then appealed to this
Court.
Appellant’s brief fails to comply with several Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2116, 2117, and
2119. “[W]e decline to become the appellant’s counsel. When . . . briefs are
wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a Court will not
consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904
A.2d 939, 942–943 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal alteration and citation
omitted). Although we could discuss the deficiencies with respect to each
rule of court listed above, we focus on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2116, which provides that “No question will be considered unless
it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a); see Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434, 462 (Pa.
2014). The lack of a statement of questions involved, along with the other
deficiencies, renders Appellant’s brief “wholly inadequate to present specific
-2-
J-S28011-17
issues for review.” Gesiorski, 904 A.2d at 942. Therefore, pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101,1 we dismiss the appeal.2
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/3/2017
1
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 provides that:
Briefs . . . shall conform in all material respects with the
requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of
the particular case will admit, . . . if the defects are in the brief
or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the
appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
2
Even if we did not dismiss this appeal, Appellant would not be entitled to
relief. She did not object to the trial court permitting Warren to withdraw
her appeal. Accordingly, any argument that the trial court erred by
permitting Warren to withdraw her appeal is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Moreover, Appellant did not appeal the board of arbitrators’ award in favor of
Warren within 30 days as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1308. Thus, any argument
regarding the merits of the board of arbitrators’ award is waived.
-3-