[brief] THE TRIAL COURT DID ERR BY STRIKING THE APPELLANT'S EXCEPTIONS  As per Point I, it is an inconvertible fact, without any need for assumptions, that the Appellant had/has standing to file IA Exceptions based on the March 25, 2022 Order, the Will, par. 10.6, the Verified Complaint, par. 4, R.4:87-8, and NJ Case Law.  "The trial court [clearly did NOT] carefully review his submission, [since it FALSLEY & INCOMPETENTLY] determined that the exceptions failed to identify with particularity the item or omission excepted, the modification sought, and the stated reasons for the modifications".  I refuted that concocted FALSE claim, which originated with Order Rider, dated Oct. 6, 2022, based on my Certification, par. 53, of my Motion for Reconsideration (181a; prior Brief, p. 19, par. 53) since "The only problem with that Court denial is that each of my Exceptions did state particularly the items or omissions for exceptions, the modifications sought in the accounting, and the reasons for the modifications."  Those 3 requirements are irrefutably validated based on my IA Exceptions, Items 1-8, which addressed problems with reported IA figures, & Items 9-11, which addressed problems with reported expenses and lack of Trust documentation to verify those expenses (114a-128a).  "In other words, the exceptions [ABSOLUTELY] did raise genuine disputes."  “Moreover, the trial court [FALSLEY & INCOMPETENTLY] determined that the exceptions were insufficient as a matter of law because they relate to style, concern matters of fiduciary discretion or do not bear on the accounting. ”  I refuted those concocted FALSE claims, which originated with Order Rider, dated Oct. 6, 2022, based on my Certification, par. 55, of my Motion for Reconsideration (182a; prior Brief, p. 19-20, par. 55) since “all of which were falsely claimed by [...] [and inexcusably repeated by the Judge], but refuted by me, since none of his claims are supported by facts challenging my Exceptions, all of which relate to substance of Trust assets, substance of Trust expense deductions against assets, and substance of required reporting details for figures in the Trust Accounting. ”  Once again, it is irrefutably validated based on my IA Exceptions, Items 1-11 (114a-128a).  “Here, [...]’s [ineffective, invalid, and falsified] decision approving the IA is [ABSOLUTELY NOT] well-reasoned and [clearly does] rest on a misinterpretation of the law, [misinterpretation of irrefutable facts, repetition of [...]’s claims, which I refuted with substantiated facts, falsifying the requirements of the Will, par. 10.6, and irrationally overlooking the requirements of the March 25, 2022 Order, Verified Complaint, par. 4, and R.4:87-8].”  “[Appellate] court should review trial court's determinations [since] there is a clear abuse of discretion [as substantiated in great detail in my Oct. 26, 2022 & May 25, 2023 Motions for Reconsideration, and May 31, 2024 Appeal Brief].”  “As such, [Appellate] Court [MUST] disturb the [Lower Court] Judgment. ”  My Oct. 26, 2022 & May 25, 2023 Motions for Reconsideration, and May 31, 2024 Appeal Brief clearly substantiated the legitimacy for reconsidering the Oct. 6, 2022, March 7, 2023, & Sept. 6, 2023  Orders based on the criteria established in R.4.49-2, and NJ Court Case D'Atria v. D'Atria, 576 A.2d 957, 961 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1990).  See my prior Brief, Section I, p. 53-55, for further details.  POINT III