Court Opinion

ID: 9897577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:16:21.308292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.558601
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                     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.
      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

                                                                           A-1889-21
                                        2
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

                                                                            A-1889-21
                                        3
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

                                                  A-1889-21
                      4
      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

                                                                             A-1889-21
                                        5
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.

                                                                              A-1889-21
                                         6