Seneca Leandro View LLC v. Kwon, E. ( 2021 )

J-S34012-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SENECA LEANDRO VIEW, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
E. HOON KWON, SEUNG YUN KWON- :
LEE, AND UNNAMED ADULT :
OCCUPANTS 4067 REGIMENT : No. 379 MDA 2021
BOULEVARD, ENOLA, PA 17025 :
:
:
APPEAL OF: SEUNG YUN KWON-LEE :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at
No(s): 2020-930
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 3, 2021
Appellant, Seung Yun Kwon-Lee, appeals pro se from the March 15,
2021 Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Seneca
Leandro View, LLC, in this ejectment action.1 Because defects in Appellant’s
brief impede our ability to provide meaningful review, we dismiss this appeal.
The facts and procedural history of this matter are largely immaterial to
our disposition. Briefly, on January 28, 2020, Appellee filed a Complaint in
ejectment seeking, inter alia, to eject Appellant, E. Hook Kwon, and Other
____________________________________________
1 Defendants E. Hoon Kwon and Other Unnamed Adult Occupants are not
parties to this appeal.
J-S34012-21
Unnamed Adult Occupants from the premises located at 4067 Regiment
Boulevard, Enola, PA.2
Following the filing of numerous sets of answers and preliminary
objections, on August 17, 2020, the trial court ordered Appellant to file an
answer on or before the close of business on September 8, 2020. The court
notified Appellant that “[f]ailure to properly to respond [to the complaint] shall
be deemed admissions to the [c]omplaint.” Order, 8/17/20. On September
9, 2020, Appellant pro se filed an “Affirmative Answer to Complaint in
Ejectment,” which the court struck as untimely on October 7, 2020.
On October 27, 2020, Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
and Brief in Support. The record reflects that Appellant did not file an answer
to the motion and failed to appear at a March 12, 2020 hearing on the motion,
despite having had notice of it. On March 15, 2021, the trial court granted
Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This pro se appeal followed. Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P
1925(b) Statement and the trial court filed a “Statement in Lieu of 1925(a)
Opinion.”
It is well-settled that “appellate briefs [] must materially conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure,” and that this
Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if defects in an appellant’s brief are
substantial. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super.
____________________________________________
2 Appellee purchased this property at a September 19, 2019 tax upset sale.
-2-
J-S34012-21
2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing required
content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements for each
subsection of the brief). “When 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).
Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,
this does not entitle a pro se litigant to any advantage based on his lack of
legal training. Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020).
An appellant’s pro se status does not relieve her of the obligation to follow the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213
n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008). Ultimately, any person who represents 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.” Branch Banking
and Trust, 904 A.2d at 942 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as
counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.”
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted).
Appellant’s pro se brief fails to conform to the basic requirements of
appellate advocacy. It does not include (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2)
the text of the order on review; (3) a statement of the scope and standard of
review; (4) a statement of the questions involved; (5) a statement of the
-3-
J-S34012-21
case; (6) a summary of the argument; (7) a distinct argument section; (8) a
copy of the relevant opinion below, (9) a copy of the statement of errors
complained of on appeal, or (10) certificates of compliance. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111, 2114-19. Instead, Appellant merely restates the facts she alleges
supported her opposition to Appellee’s underlying request for ejectment.
Crucially, she fails to articulate how the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s
motion for summary judgment and fails to provide any discussion of legal
authority applied and analyzed under the facts of this case. See Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a), (b).
These substantial deficiencies not only violate the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, but, more importantly, preclude this Court from conducting
meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Accordingly, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/03/2021
-4-