CHERYL A. GALLO VS. ROBERT A. GALLOÂ (L-0058-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4095-15T2

Plaintiff Cheryl Gallo’s mother loaned defendant Robert Gallo $50,000 (Aug. 8, 2008) and additional sums to the spouses totaling $330,000 in 2008–2009; total claimed was $380,000.
The parties divorced in Jan. 2015; their DJD required payment to plaintiff’s mother of monies due "in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties."
The mother sued plaintiff and defendant for $380,000; attorneys for the mother and defendant negotiated a settlement of $286,170.14 to be paid at closing in exchange for dismissal.
On Sept. 26, 2015 (before the closing payment), the mother assigned her $50,000 note to plaintiff for $1. The settlement amount was paid at closing on Sept. 28, 2015.
The mother dismissed her suit with prejudice (Dec. 2, 2015). Plaintiff then sued defendant on the assigned $50,000 note; the Law Division dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as barred by the mother’s dismissal. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mother’s dismissal lacked consideration because defendant was already obligated under the DJD	Gallo: no new consideration — defendant already legally obligated to pay; so dismissal with prejudice was ineffective to extinguish the $50,000 claim	Mother/defendant: settlement payment and dismissal constituted a valid compromise and extinguished claims	Court: Enforcement of settlements favored; parties had not fixed amount in DJD; settlement payment was consideration — dismissal enforced; plaintiff’s suit dismissed
Whether a prior payment constituted accord and satisfaction of the $50,000 note	Gallo: the $286,170.14 payment did not accord and satisfy the separate $50,000 note assigned to plaintiff	Mother/defendant: negotiated payment resolved the mother’s entire claim; dismissal with prejudice bars further suits based on that claim	Court: Accord and satisfaction issue not raised below and lacks public importance to excuse waiver; settlement and dismissal enforced

Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (1990) (public policy strongly favors settlement enforcement)
Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., L.L.C., 215 N.J. 242 (2013) (settlement of disputes is favored)
Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575 (2008) (courts give effect to settlement terms where possible)
Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1983) (settlement agreements enforced absent fraud or compelling circumstances)
Thompson v. City of Atlantic City, 190 N.J. 359 (2007) (settlement governed by contract principles)
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hudson E. Pain Mgmt., 210 N.J. 597 (2012) (contract interpretation is a question of law)
Onderdonk v. Presbyterian Homes of N.J., 85 N.J. 171 (1981) (court’s objective is to determine parties’ intent from contract language)
Celanese Ltd. v. Essex Cty. Improvement Auth., 404 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2009) (contracts read as a whole to determine intent)
Cumberland Cty. Improvement Auth. v. GSP Recycling Co., 358 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div.) (2003) (interpretation in accord with justice and common sense)
Krosnowski v. Krosnowski, 22 N.J. 376 (1956) (contract interpretation principles)
State v. Churchdale Leasing, Inc., 115 N.J. 83 (1989) (issues not raised below considered on appeal only when of public importance)