SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2400-18T1

PETER LAGOMARSINO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARY LAGOMARSINO

n/k/a MARY LANNI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted December 16, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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, 2020
2

A-2400-18T1

In this post-dissolution matter, defendant Mary Lagomarsino n/k/a Mary 

Lanni appeals pro se from a Family Part 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. On November 18, 2018, 

the parties appeared for a scheduled plenary hearing to consider (1) defendant's 

motion to enforce plaintiff's education obligation as stated in the parties' 

Property Settlement Agreement (PSA); and (2) her motion for an upward 

modification of child support. The plenary hearing never occurred, however, 

because the parties reached a settlement after an extensive settlement conference 

with the judge and counsel and their clients. Eventually, counsel for both parties 

reported on the record 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 child 
3

A-2400-18T1

support and college education contribution; (2) plaintiff shall pay $9725.501 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 support payments commencing December 31, 2018;

and (5) any child support arrears currently on plaintiff's account are not 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. Defendant 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 written, 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 VI

The trial court improperly circumnavigated the parties' 

PSA and changed its terms without cause and without 

hearing any evidence (not raised below)

We conclude that none of defendant's proffered arguments have sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). At the 

outset, because defendant never sought relief by way of a motion to vacate the 
5

A-2400-18T1

settlement, we are deprived of more thorough factual or legal findings to 

facilitate appellate review of her claims.

Regardless, contrary 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 settlement. 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, believing 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. See 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).