IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH KANTER DECEASED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

IN THE MATTER OF THE

ESTATE OF KENNETH KANTER,

DECEASED.

______________________________

December 21, 2016

Argued December 6, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, ChanceryDivision, ProbatePart, Bergen County, Docket No. P-0069-14.

Sidney S. Kanter, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Eric D. Reiser argued the cause for respondent Seth Kanter (LoFaro & Reiser, L.L.P., attorneys; Carmine LoFaro and Mr. Reiser, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Sidney S. Kanter (Sidney), an attorney, appeals from an August 3, 2015 order denying reconsideration of a letter order of dismissal dated May 13, 2015. The August 3, 2015 order also denied Sidney's motion to vacate a settlement agreement dated May 11, 2015. Judge Robert P. Contillo entered the orders, granted cross-motions filed by Seth Kanter (Seth) and Harold Kanter (Harold) seeking to enforce the terms of the settlement, and rendered a comprehensive written decision. We affirm.

Decedent, Harold, and Sidney are biological brothers. Seth is decedent's biological son. Decedent transferred four quitclaim deeds to Sidney and executed a Will. Sidney prepared the Will and deeds. In this lawsuit, the parties challenged the validity of the Will and deeds.

The parties appeared for mediation before the judge with counsel and reached the settlement in May 2015. Immediately after reaching the agreement, the judge placed the terms of the settlement on the record. In addition to outlining in great detail the settlement terms, which we will not repeat here, the judge questioned counsel and the parties. As to Sidney, the judge stated

I need to be sure that you understand the agreement, that you[ are] entering into it voluntarily, that nobody's threatened you, . . . so I'm going to ask [you] a series of questions.

If you have any questions or if you disagree with my statements, you need to stand up and say so. Otherwise, the record will reflect that you are agreeing with the statements that I'm about to give.

Number one, my understanding is that the parties who have been here negotiating this deal all afternoon and now into the evening fully understand the terms of the settlement, understand that there's no side agreements, this is the full and complete terms of the settlement, it's been placed on the record, it may or may not get reduced to writing, but it's not depend[ent] upon being reduced to writing.

No one is taking any medication or suffering [from] any condition that would prevent them from entering into something like a binding agreement, such as this. And while people understand that they may not have gotten everything that they wanted, they have nevertheless entered into this agreement freely and voluntarily.

The attorneys have represented these parties since their beginning[,] and the parties are satisfied with their services and the parties understand that they can't change their mind later on and say that I've changed my mind, I don't want the agreement, because this is a full and final voluntary settlement.

I would first ask [Sidney] whether he agrees with those statements.

[Sidney responded]: Judge, I agree with everything you've said. . . . Your Honor, I'm in total agreement.

Sidney later filed a motion to set-aside the agreement arguing that he was under pressure during the settlement negotiations. The judge denied Sidney's motion and stated in his written opinion that

there is no evidence of any fraud or other compelling circumstances to warrant vacation of the [s]ettlement[,] nor is there any evidence that the terms and conditions of the [s]ettlement were unclear or ambiguous. The court clearly stated to Sidney . . . and all counsel . . . that if any individual had a question with or disagreed with the [s]ettlement[,] he must stand up and say so. The court also advised all of the litigants and counsel that their silence will be taken as their consent to the terms of the [s]ettlement. The memorialized acknowledgements made after counsel set forth the terms of the [s]ettlement on the record included that (a) no one was taking any medication or suffering from any condition that would prevent them [from] entering into a binding agreement, (b) the parties entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily, and (c) the parties understand they cannot change their minds later and back out of the [s]ettlement.

In denying Sidney's motion to vacate the settlement, the judge made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, and rejected any suggestion that Sidney was under duress or that the agreement was unconscionable.

On appeal, Sidney argues Seth's claim, that decedent could not convey property by deed and execute a valid will, is barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands; the settlement agreement is unconscionable because he cannot survive financially as decedent had intended; the distribution of decedent's property is grossly unfair; and he could not cope with the distress and shock he experienced when the matter was negotiated and settled.

We conclude that Sidney's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons expressed by Judge Contillo.

Affirmed.