Shipley, F. v. Zink, B. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A01035-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 FLOYD SHIPLEY, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BRENDA ZINK, Appellant No. 683 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered March 25, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County, Civil Division, at No(s): 1112 - 2013 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and ALLEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2014 Brenda Zink (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s order entering judgment in favor of Appellee, Floyd Shipley (“Shipley”), and against Appellant. Because Appellant’s appellate brief is patently defective, we dismiss her appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“ … if the defects are in the brief … of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal … may be … dismissed”). The trial court summarized this case as follows: The present action is a mortgage foreclosure commenced by [Shipley’s] Complaint on September 17, 2013. In response, [Appellant] filed a Letter of Intent to Defend on October 4, 2013. [Appellant] filed no further pleadings. Subsequently, [Shipley] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and we held a hearing on said motion on March 3, 2014. After the hearing, we granted [Shipley’s] Motion for Summary Judgment. This appeal by [Appellant] followed. J-A01035-15 Trial Court Opinion, 7/18/14, at 1. In contravention of Pa.R.A.P. 2111, Appellant’s appellate brief does not contain a statement of the questions involved. Nor does Appellant’s brief contain a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review; a statement of the case; or a summary of the argument or a developed argument. Rather, Appellant’s appellate brief consists of copies of the trial court’s March 25, 2014 order and July 18, 2014 Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion, in the middle of which are five (5) handwritten pages, where we discern the essence of Appellant’s argument to be that her “attempts to work this out with [] Shipley have been blocked. This could of [sic] been avoided.” Appellant’s Brief at 3 (unnumbered). In addition, Appellant fails to cite any legal authority. “The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with discussion and citation of pertinent authorities.” Estate of Lakatosh, 441 Pa.Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378, 1381 (1995). “This Court will not consider the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority.” Iron Age Corp. v. Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657, 665 (Pa.Super.2005). Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal. Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa.Super.2003), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 712, 839 A.2d 352 (2003). Instantly, Appellants failed to cite any legal authority to support their single-paragraph argument on this issue. Appellants’ failure in this respect waives the issue for purposes of review. See Iron Age Corp., supra; Eichman, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101; 2119(a). In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209-210 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emphasis in original). -2- J-A01035-15 We additionally recognize that Appellant’s pro se status does not excuse her complete failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally, Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (pro se status confers no special benefit upon an appellant). Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal. Order affirmed. Case stricken from the January 7, 2015 argument list. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2014 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
