SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1889-21 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF 

JOHN L. MARCHISOTTO, 

DECEASED. 

________________________

Submitted October 30, 2023 – Decided November 13, 2023 

Before Judges Marczyk and Chase. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. 18-

000394.

John F. Marchisotto, appellant pro se. 

Respondent Debra E. Canova has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

 Petitioner John F. Marchisotto appeals from January 11 and February 8, 

2021 Chancery Division orders granting the trustee's motion to withdraw funds 

deposited with the Superior Court Trust Fund and making a final distribution of 

the estate. We affirm. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-1889-21

 On October 2, 2016, decedent, John L. Marchisotto, died testate, leaving 

three children: petitioner, defendant Debra Canova, and Diane Cusack. Prior to 

his death, decedent had retained Louis Lepore, Esq. ("Lepore"), to prepare new 

estate planning documents, including a will, an irrevocable trust instrument, and 

a durable power of attorney appointing Canova. In November 2016, Canova 

was appointed the executrix of decedent's estate and trustee of the John L. 

Marchisotto Irrevocable Trust (the "Trust"). 

Petitioner has an extensive history of litigation in both state and federal 

court involving the Trust, decedent's estate, and various parties involved with 

the estate—including family members, attorneys, banks, and trial and appellate 

judges from both New Jersey and New York. Petitioner's unopposed brief and 

lengthy appendices do not provide a clear picture of where the litigation 

currently stands in these various courts. 

The underlying facts involved in this matter are set forth in our prior 

opinion and will not be repeated here as the parties are aware of the litigation 

and claims made by petitioner. In the Matter of the Irrevocable Trust of John L. 

Marchisotto, Deceased, No. A-3453-19 (App. Div. Apr. 21, 2022) (slip op. 1-

23). There, we affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's complaint with prejudice 
3 A-1889-21

for failure to answer discovery and because his claims lacked any substantial 

factual support. 

 By reviewing the orders and opinions issued by the trial court in this case, 

it appears that on January 5, 2022, the trial court placed findings on the record 

and granted a motion filed on behalf of Canova, as trustee, to withdraw funds 

deposited with the Superior Court Trust Fund and make a final distribution of 

the estate. These findings were later documented in the January and February 

2021 orders. The orders instructed the Superior Court in Middlesex County to 

issue a check to the Trust for $612,541.94, to be distributed to members of the 

Trust. The check was to be mailed to Lepore as a representative of the Trust 

and trustee Canova. 

Petitioner challenges the trial court's orders and raises the following 

arguments: 

POINT 1: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 

GRANTING [THE] ORDER ON [FEBRUARY 8, 

2022, THE] JUDGE . . . SIGNED A "FALSE" 

PROPOSED ORDER EMAIL[ED] TO HIM BY . . . 

LEPORE . . . TO ALLOW HIM TO FRAUDULENTLY 

WITHDRAW $612,541.94 MONIES FROM THE 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY TRUST 

FUND UNIT "FALSELY STATING[:" ]"NO OTHER 

PERSON OR PARTY IS ENTITLED TO ANY 

PORTION OF THE DEPOSIT BEING 

WITHDRAWN[.]" RAISED BELOW 
4 A-1889-21

POINT 2: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 

GRANTING [THE] ORDER ON [JANUARY 11, 

2022. THE] JUDGE . . . WAS ALSO VERY WELL 

INFORMED ABOUT THERE BEING $142,060.53 OF 

MISSING ESTATE/TRUST MONIES THAT WERE 

NOT IN THE ESTATE/TRUST BANK ACCOUNTS 

IN DECEMBER 2018 WHEN JPMORGAN CHASE 

HAD FROZEN THOSE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS 

AND LIABLE FOR BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL 

DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF[.] RAISED BELOW 

POINT 3: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 

GRANTING ORDER[S] [ON JANUARY 11, 2022 

AND FEBRUARY 8, 2022. ] . . . LEPORE . . . , 

BACKFILED [THE] JULY, AND SEPTEMBER 2021 

MOTIONS . . . [, WHICH] VIOLATES BOTH THE 

RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE, AND COLLATERAL 

ESTOPPEL[.] RAISED BELOW 

POINT 4: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 

GRANTING ORDER[S] [ON JANUARY 11, 2022 

AND FEBRUARY 8, 2022. ] . . . LEPORE . . . DOES 

NOT MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY 

INSURANCE, AND HAS WILLFULLY PERJURED 

HIMSELF BEFORE EVERY COURT IN THE STATE 

OF NEW JERSEY INCLUDING FEDERAL 

COURT[,] FALSELY CLAIMING TO ONLY BE A 

SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, WHEN HE HAS A P.C. 

AND NUMEROUS LLC'S CONNECTED TO HIS 

LAW OFFICES, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER 

[RULES] 1:21-[1]A ("PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATIONS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW"), 

1:21-[1]B ("LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FOR 

THE PRACTICE OF LAW"), AND 1:21-[1]C 

("LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE 

PRACTICE OF LAW")[.] RAISED BELOW 
5 A-1889-21

Trial judges are afforded wide discretion in deciding many of the issues 

that arise in civil. See, e.g., Matter of Gloria T. Mann Revocable Tr., 468 N.J. 

Super. 160, 165-66 (App. Div. 2021). Appellate courts review those decisions 

for an abuse of discretion. "A court abuses its discretion when its 'decision is 

made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established 

policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" State v. Chavies, 247 N.J. 245, 

257 (2021) (quoting State v. R.Y., 242 N.J. 48, 65 (2020)). "[A] functional 

approach to abuse of discretion examines whether there are good reasons for an 

appellate court to defer to the particular decision at issue." R.Y., 242 N.J. at 65 

(alteration in original) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 

571 (2002)). "When examining a trial court's exercise of discretionary authority, 

we reverse only when the exercise of discretion was 'manifestly unjust' under 

the circumstances." Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Exposition 

Auth., 423 N.J. Super. 140, 174 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Union Cnty. 

Improvement Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, 392 N.J. Super. 141, 149 (App. Div. 2007)). 

We glean from petitioner's brief that he essentially argues there was fraud. 

Petitioner, without any factual support, alleges instances of fraudulent behavior 

by Canova, Canova's attorney as representative of the trust, and the trial court. 

Beyond these assertions, petitioner provides no applicable legal principles to 
6 A-1889-21

support his claims. In granting the orders to withdraw and distribute funds, the 

trial court denied petitioner's request for any further accounting that would result 

in a further delay in distributing the funds to the trust. As petitioner only made 

conclusory and circular arguments, the court disagreed that there were any issues 

present with Lepore's accountings of the trust or estate. 

Based upon our review of the record and controlling law, we conclude the 

trial judge's rulings were factually and legally correct. Having considered 

petitioner's arguments on appeal through the same lens, we conclude they are 

without merit and do not warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.