SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 2400

- 18T1

PETER LAGOMARSINO,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

MARY LAGOMARSINO n/k/a MARY LANNI,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________ _

Submitted December 1 6, 2019

– Decided
Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM

- 02

- 1121

- 07.
Mary Lanni, appellant pro se.
Peter Lagomarsino, respondent pro se.
The opinion of the court was delivered by

MITTERHOFF, J.A.D. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

September 22, 20202 A

- 2400

- 18T1

In this post

- dissolution matter, defendant Mary Lagomarsino n/k/a Mary
Lanni appeals pro se from a Family Pa rt judge's December 19, 2018 order
memorializing a settlement of the parties' agreement concerning child support
and contribution to college expenses. Based on the record and the applicable

law, we affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. O n November 18, 2018,

t he parties appeared for a scheduled plenary hearing to consider (1) defendant's
motion to enforce plaintiff ' s education obligation as stated in the parties'

P roperty S ettlement A greement (PSA) ; and (2) her motion for an upward

modific ation of child support. T he plenary hearing never occurred , however,

because the parties reached a settlement after an extensive settlement conferenc e
with the judge and counsel and their clients. Eventually, counsel for both parties
reported on the recor d that the matter had settled, and the terms of the settlement
were placed on the record.
By order dated December 19, 2018, the judge memorialized the settlement
in order to facilitate enforcement of its terms by Probation. The record reveals

that the order mirrors the terms set forth on the record the day before. The order
provides that (1) plaintiff shall pay $11,000 per year representing his child3 A

- 2400

- 18T1

support and college education contribution; (2) plaintiff shall pay $9725.50 1 by
January 1, 2019
, directly to the child's college; (3) for the last two years of
college, plaintiff shall pay $5500 on August 1, 2019, January 2, 2020, August 1,
2020, and January 1, 2021
, directly to the child's college; (4) Probation to
suspend collection of child suppor t payments commencing December 31, 2018;
and (5) any child support arrears currently on plaintiff's account are n ot vacated
and his arrears paycheck shall remain at $50 per week.
After receipt of the December 19, 2018 order, defendant did not object to
the form of order or otherwise claim that it failed to comport with the terms of

the settlement . A review of the transcript reveals that she did understand the

terms of the settlement and she expressly stated so in sworn colloquy with the
judge. Defendan t never made a motion to set aside or vacate the settlement for
any reason, and until this appeal never claimed she was coerced into agreeing

with its terms. Rather than seek any of the foregoing relief, defendant pursued
this appeal.
On appeal, defendant present the following arguments for our review:

POINT I The New Jersey Standards for Appellate Review permit this court to consider whether the trial court's refusal to

1 Because the daughter had already completed two years of college, this amount represents his obligation with a reduction for payments made.4 A

- 2400

- 18T1 conduct a scheduled plenary hearing and refusal to hear evidence warrants vacating the Civil Action Order filed on December 19, 2018, and remanding the matter for a plenary hearing (not raised below)

POINT II The trial court violated the substantive due process rights of the appellant to be heard and to free speech during the December 18, 2018 proceeding (not raised below)

POINT III The trial court violated numerous Canons of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct, and has prejudiced appellant. (not raised below)

POINT IV The Order filed December 19, 2018 was not entered by consent, as w ritten, but is the result of the trial court's tactic to dispose of the case. The trial court abused its discretion and gave appellant no choice but to participate in a coerced settlement proceeding (not raised below)

POINT V The Order filed December 19, 2018 should be vacated because it contains numerous errors (not raised below)

POINT V I The trial court improperly circumnavigated the parties' PSA and changed its terms without cause and without hearing any evidence (not raised below)

We conclude th at none of defendant's proffered arguments have sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opi nion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). At the
outset, because defendant never sought relief by way of a motion to vacate the5 A

- 2400

- 18T1

settlement , we are deprived of more thor ough factual or legal findings to
facilitate appellate review of her claims.
Regardless, c ontrary to defendant's allegations, the order comported with

the terms of the settlement set forth on the record. Defendant was present at the
hearing and represented by counsel. Defendant indicated on the record that she

understood the terms of the sett lement. Finally, the record before us does not
support any finding of coercion or judicial misconduct. 2 Rather, the thrust of all
defendant's arguments is that she now wishes she had insisted on a trial instead
of settling, believ ing she may have gotten a better result. That is not a sufficient

basis to set aside an otherwise valid settlement.

Affirmed.

2 We reject defendant's argument that a judge in the context of allowing the parties to place settlement terms on the record must make findings of fact and conclusions of law. We also reject that a more formal voir dire asking expressly whether defendant was knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a trial was required. Se e Jennings v. Reed , 381 N.J. Super. 217, 228

– 299 (App. Div. 2005) ( explaining that no formalization of a settlement on the record does not make it any less binding).