J-A03018-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PA, BY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MERGER W/METRO BANK : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
DOUGLASS E. HOWARD, JR.; ERICA :
STRANG, AND ALL OCCUPANTS : No. 577 MDA 2019
LOCATED AT 400 BEAVER ROAD, :
HARRISBURG, PA 17112 :
:
:
APPEAL OF: ERICA STRANG :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Civil Division at No(s):
2017 CV 5750 EJ
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 17, 2020
Appellant, Erica Strang, appeals from the March 29, 2019 Order entered
in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas granting First National Bank of
PA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. We dismiss this appeal.
The pro se Brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to
conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. In her Brief,
Appellant has not made any effort to comply with any of the requirements of
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing the items that an appellant
must include in her appellate brief).
Most notably, the argument section of Appellant has not articulated the
trial court’s alleged error, and her Brief is devoid of any citation to case law or
J-A03018-20
to the record. See Appellant’s Brief at 1-3 (unpaginated). “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 she lacks legal training.” Id. at 942 (citation omitted). “As our
[S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to represent herself
in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
her lack of expertise and legal training will prove her 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.
-2-
J-A03018-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/17/2020
-3-