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- 0 00394. John F. Marchisotto, appellant pro se. Respondent Debra E. Canova has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM Petitioner John F. Marchisotto appeals from Januar y 11 and February 8, 2021 Chancery Division orders granting the trustee's motion to withdraw fu nds deposited with the Superior Court Trust Fund and ma king 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. 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 irr evocable trust instrument, and a durable power of attorney appointing Canova. In November 2016, Canova was appointed the executrix of decedent's estate an d trustee of the John L. Marchisotto Irrevocable Trust (the "Trust").
Pe titioner has an extensive history of litigation in both state and federal court involving the Trust, decedent's estate, and v arious parties involved with
the estate

— including family members, attorneys, banks, and tri al and appellate judges from both New Jersey and New York. Petition er's unopposed brief and lengthy appendices do not provide a clear picture o f where the litigation currently stands in the se various courts. The underlying facts involved in this matter are se t forth in our prior opinion and will not be repeated here as the parties are aw are 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 petitione r's complaint with prejudice3 A- 1889

- 21

for failure to answer discovery and because his cla ims lacked any substantial factual support.
B y reviewing the orders and opinions issued by the tri al 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 wi thdraw funds deposited with the Superior Court Trust Fund and ma ke a final distribution of the estate. These findings were later documented i n the January and February
202 1 orders. The orders instructed the Superior Court in Middlesex County to issue a check to the Trust for $612,541.94, to be d istributed to members of the Trust. The check was to be mailed to Lepore as a r epresentative 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 BELOW4 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 BELOW5 A- 1889

- 21

Trial judges are afforded wide discretion in decidi ng 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 cou rts review those decisions for an abuse of discretion. "A court abuses its di scretion when its 'decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably d eparted from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" S tate 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 th ere 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 Cn ty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)). "When examining a trial court's exerc ise 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) (quotin g Union Cnty. Improvement Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, 392 N.J. Super. 1 41, 149 (App. Div. 2007)). We glean from petitioner's brief that he essentiall y argues there was fraud. Petitioner, without any factual support, alleges in stances of fraudulent behavior by Canova , Canova's attorney as representative of the trust, a nd the trial court

. Beyond these assertions, petitioner provides no app licable legal principles to6 A- 1889

- 21

support his claims. In granting the orders to withdraw and distribute f unds, the trial court denied petitioner's request for any fur ther 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 disagr eed that there were any issues present with Lepore's accountings of the trust or e state. Based upon our review of the record and controlling law, we conclude the trial judge's rulings were factually and legally co rrect. Having considered petitioner's arguments on appeal through the same l ens, we conclude they are without merit and do not warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11 -3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.