In Re: Est. of Howard, M. Appeal of: Howard, D.
2065 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Anita B. Schwenk was appointed executrix of Margaret Anita Howard’s estate; she filed for ejectment to remove Douglass E. Howard, Jr. from estate real property.
- At a May 13, 2014 hearing the parties agreed on a stipulation: Schwenk would withdraw as executrix and Howard would be appointed administrator; the agreement was read into the record but Howard initially refused to sign the written agreement.
- A written agreement was sent to Howard on June 26, 2014; after Schwenk filed to enforce the stipulation and cite Howard for contempt, he signed the agreement on July 31, 2014.
- Howard filed a motion to compel compliance (Sept. 25, 2014), alleging Schwenk failed to transfer $2,578.04 remaining in estate funds and instead provided only about $140.
- A July 6, 2015 hearing occurred: Howard offered only his testimony and unsupported calculations; Schwenk presented bank records showing estate expenses. The orphans’ court denied Howard’s motion on Nov. 5, 2015.
- Howard appealed pro se; the Superior Court quashed the appeal because his appellate brief materially violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and failed to present issues adequately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court should consider merits despite briefing defects | Howard argued the orphans’ court erred in denying his motion to compel and sought reversal | Court below argued Howard’s brief failed to comply with appellate rules and did not present clear issues | Appeal quashed for substantial briefing violations; issues waived |
| Whether the orphans’ court erred in denying motion to compel (substantive claim) | Howard claimed the joint stipulation entitled him to $2,578.04 and he received only ~$140 | Schwenk produced bank records showing subsequent estate expenditures after May 13 agreement and explained reduced distribution | Superior Court did not reach merits; orphans’ court record shows denial supported by Schwenk’s documentary evidence |
| Whether pro se status excuses briefing noncompliance | Howard requested leniency due to pro se status | Court cited precedent that pro se litigants receive liberal construction but not special advantage; they must follow rules | Pro se status did not excuse failures; liberal construction insufficient to salvage brief |
| Whether failure to include statement of questions forfeits review | Howard’s brief lacked a clear statement of questions involved | Orphans’ court and Superior Court asserted Pa.R.A.P. 2116 requires concise questions; absent them issues aren’t considered | Court held omission fatal; no question considered unless stated or fairly suggested |
Key Cases Cited
- Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty Co., Inc., 809 A.2d 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court may quash appeal for briefs that violate appellate rules)
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se litigant not excused from briefing requirements; liberal construction has limits)
- O’Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 1989) (pro se litigant assumes risk that lack of legal training may cause procedural failures)
- Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1982) (issues not properly raised and developed in brief will not be considered)