J-S47032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET PENNSYLVANIA
SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A214CB
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-N UNDER
POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENT
DATED AS OF 10/1/06
Appellee
v.
ROBERT KEELER
Appellant No. 1534 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
Civil Division at No(s): 2008-1211
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2016
Robert Keeler appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County that denied his petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale. For the
following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
Keeler’s pro se brief fails to comply with almost all applicable
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101 provides that
where defects in the appellant’s brief or reproduced record are substantial,
the appeal may be dismissed. Here, Keeler did not file a reproduced record
nor did he file an application seeking to be excused from producing one.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2151(d).
J-S47032-16
Furthermore, Pa.R.A.P. 2117 requires a statement of the form of
action followed by a brief procedural history, a brief history of any prior
determination in the same case, the names of the judges whose
determinations are to be reviewed and a condensed chronological statement
of the facts. Instead, Keeler’s brief contains an introductory note, a
reference to the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, a statement of two
general issues and a discussion of the grant of summary judgment entered
more than five years ago.
Keeler’s brief fails to include a summary of argument, see Pa.R.A.P.
2118. The argument section fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119 in that it
consists of 28 numbered paragraphs with no clear connection or reference to
the record. While the brief contains references to four cases, only one is a
published decision, and it is from a federal bankruptcy court. Accordingly,
none of the cases has precedential value in this Court.
Keeler’s brief contains no table of contents, see Pa.R.A.P. 2174(a),
and no table of citations, see Pa.R.A.P. 2174(b).
Finally, because Keeler’s brief fails to explain why the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale, we
are unable to engage in meaningful review. See Branch Banking & Trust
v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2009) (dismissal appropriate where
numerous defects in pro se brief prevented court from conducting
meaningful appellate review).
Appeal dismissed.
-2-
J-S47032-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2016
-3-
Deutsche Bank v. Keeler, R.
Combined Opinion