SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0699-15T4

AMERICAN EXPRESS

CENTURION BANK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SALVATORE MASTROPOLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________

Argued April 25, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Suter and Grall.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket 

No. L-0440-14.

Richard H. Kotkin argued the cause for 

appellant.

Respondent American Express Centurion Bank 

has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff American Express Centurion Bank filed a complaint 

alleging defendant Salvatore Mastropole breached a credit card 

agreement to pay the minimum amount due as indicated on his 

monthly statements (count one), seeking payment due on the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

July 5, 2017
2 A-0699-15T4

account (count two), and alleging unjust enrichment based on 

defendant's receipt of the benefits charged on the card without 

tendering payment (count three). The parties settled the case 

and filed an amended stipulation of settlement with the court on 

May 6, 2014. On July 10, 2015, defendant moved to vacate the 

settlement agreement, and he now appeals from a July 25, 2015 

order, denying his motion to vacate. Plaintiff did not file a 

timely answering brief, and on its own motion, this court 

suppressed the brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Defendant was not represented by counsel at the time of the 

settlement. He was, however, represented by counsel on the 

motion to vacate, and he is represented by the same attorney on 

appeal. In support of his motion to vacate the settlement, 

defendant submitted a certification asserting that he "agreed to 

settle" the initial litigation with the understanding that he 

"would make certain monthly payments, towards the outstanding 

balance" and "would get back [his] credit privileges and . . . 

could continue to charge on the Account." Although his credit 

was not restored, he continued to make monthly payments. By

plaintiff's account, he made ten monthly payments under their 

agreement before stopping payments and consulting an attorney, 

who, according to defendant, told him the agreement did not 

reflect his understanding. 
3 A-0699-15T4

There is no question that the four page, seven paragraph 

stipulation of settlement defendant signed does not reflect 

those terms. Instead, it includes the following:

Except for the terms and conditions contained 

herein Defendant[s] acknowledges and 

represents that he possess no claims, demands, 

defenses, counterclaims, or causes of action 

whatsoever against [plaintiff], its officers, 

directors, employees, agents, attorneys, 

heirs and assigns pertaining to [his account 

number], which are not being resolved pursuant 

to the Agreement. Defendant[s] forever waives 

and relinquishes any and all such claims, 

whether known or unknown, and further 

covenants and agrees that he shall not 

institute any suit, proceedings or action at 

law, equity arbitration, or otherwise against 

[plaintiff], or in any way aid in the 

institution or prosecution of any claim, 

demand, or cause of action against American 

Express arising directly or indirectly out of 

or in connection with [his account number].

Defendant does not point to a single passage in the 

document he signed to settle plaintiff's suit that he could have 

read as a promise to restore his credit. Nevertheless, he 

signed it.

"Public policy favors the settlement of disputes." 

Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., L.L.C., 215 

N.J. 242, 253 (2013). "An agreement to settle a lawsuit is a 

contract which, like all contracts, may be freely entered into 

and which a court, absent a demonstration of 'fraud or other 

compelling circumstances,' should honor and enforce as it does 
4 A-0699-15T4

other contracts." Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118, 124 

(App. Div.) (quoting Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130, 136 

(App. Div. 1974), certif. denied, 94 N.J. 600 (1983)); accord

Zuccarelli v. N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 326 N.J. Super. 372, 

380 (App. Div. 1999), certif. denied and appeal dismissed, 163 

N.J. 394 (2000). "Before vacating a settlement agreement, our 

courts require clear and convincing proof that the agreement 

should be vacated." Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465, 472 (1990)

(internal quotation marks omitted). "A party is bound to the 

contract it made at the time, even if it turns out to be a poor 

deal." New Jersey Mfrs. v. O'Connell, 300 N.J. Super. 1, 7 

(App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 75 (1997).

Given defendant's signing of the agreement unambiguously 

omitting any promise concerning restoration of credit, and his 

tender of ten monthly payments in conformity with the 

stipulation, defendant's unsupported assertion that plaintiff 

fraudulently omitted a promise material to his agreement is 

simply not enough to warrant an order vacating the settlement. 

Judge Brogan properly denied the motion.

Affirmed.