Murray, E. v. Warner, R.
523 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Decedents Earl Phillip Murray and Anna Murray (husband and wife) made a $5,800 advance to Rick and Theresa Warner. The estate of Anna Murray (continued by executrix Catherine Marshall after subsequent deaths) claimed the advance was a loan.
- The trial court (Dec. 31, 2015) declared the $5,800 an enforceable loan, entered judgment against the Warners for $5,800, and required repayment within 180 days of the Superior Court’s March 15, 2016 order.
- The Warners, appearing pro se, filed post-trial motions which were denied by the trial court on March 15, 2016; they then appealed to the Superior Court.
- On appeal, the Warners’ brief omitted required elements: statement of questions presented, statement of jurisdiction, scope/standard of review, statement of the case, summary of argument, any developed argument, citations to legal authority, or a clear relief request.
- The Superior Court found the brief so deficient that meaningful judicial review was impossible and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 and controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $5,800 advance was a loan enforceable against the Warners | Estate: the advance was a loan and judgment should be entered | Warners: (no coherent legal argument presented in brief) | Trial court held it was a loan and entered judgment for $5,800; Superior Court affirmed by dismissal of appeal on procedural grounds |
| Whether the appeal should proceed given appellants’ pro se brief defects | Estate: appeal should be reviewed / judgment enforced | Warners: attempted to raise assorted factual and representative challenges but failed to present organized issues | Superior Court dismissed appeal for failure to comply with appellate briefing rules (no statement of questions, no developed argument, no citations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (omission of statement of questions and undeveloped arguments can render an appellate brief insufficient for meaningful review)
- Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (statement of questions presented defines issues for appellate review)