which was to be the value of Husband’s pension as of December 31, 1993. Thus, Husband concludes that these omissions have resulted in Wife failing to establish a sufficient record before the Master and trial court to preserve the issue regarding valuation of Husband’s pension. He further asserts that Wife’s claims are waived due to her failure to file a brief in support of her exceptions when directed to do so by the trial court. ¶ 8 Although we do not condone Wife’s apparent disregard for the trial court’s direction to file a brief in support of her exceptions, because Husband does not cite to any applicable local rules or case law endorsing such waiver, we fail to find that Wife has waived her issues on appeal. See Fielding v. Fielding, 454 Pa.Super. 261, 685 A.2d 178, 179-80 (1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 9 In reviewing Wife’s claims, the
holding that appellate courts will not review undeveloped and unsupported arguments holding that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority are forfeited on appeal holding that the seventh circuit has made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority are waived even where those arguments raise constitutional issues holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that generally appellate courts will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal