J-A03016-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
METRO BANK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR., :
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF :
MARGARET A. HOWARD, AND ALL : No. 17 MDA 2019
UNKNOWN HEIRS TO THE ESTATE :
OF MARGARET A. HOWARD, :
DECEASED :
:
:
APPEAL OF: DOUGLASS E. :
HOWARD, JR.
Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
2014 CV 7968-MF
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 17, 2020
Appellant, Douglass Earl Howard, Jr., appeals pro se from the November
16, 2018 Order entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in this
mortgage foreclosure action. In the November 16, 2018 Order, the trial court
determined that: (1) the July 20, 2016 transfer of real property from the
Estate of Margaret A. Howard by Appellant, as administrator of the Estate, to
himself was invalid; and (2) Appellant does not have a personal interest in the
property and is, thus, prohibited from proceeding pro se. We dismiss this
appeal.
J-A03016-20
The pro se Brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to
conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s Brief
does not include: (1) the full text of the Order in question; (2) accurate
statements of the scope and standard of review; and (3) a copy of his Rule
1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing required contents for
appellate briefs).
Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s Brief, while
voluminous, is devoid of any citation to case law or to the record. See
Appellant’s Brief at 11-39. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state
unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by
discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824
A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs).
Furthermore, “[w]hen 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). See
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in
dismissal of appeal).
“While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because [he] lacks legal training.” Id. at 942 (citation omitted) “As our
[S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to represent
-2-
J-A03016-20
[himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the
risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing.”
Id. (citation omitted).
In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s Brief
cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant’s Brief, which hamper our
ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/17/2020
-3-