NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2544-16T1 IN THE MATTER OF THE INTER VIVOS TRUST, GEORGIA L. TILLI a/k/a LORRAINE TILLI, GRANTOR. ________________________________ Submitted May 2, 2018 – Decided September 4, 2018 Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Bergen County, Docket No. P-000100-16.

Jon Tilli, appellant pro se.

Kridel Law Group, attorneys for respondent Janice Paul, Trustee of the Georgia L. Tilli a/k/a Lorraine Tilli Irrevocable Living Trust (James A. Kridel, Jr. and Anne L. Heldman, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Appellant, Jon Tilli, appeals from the summary judgment entered against him in favor of the Georgia L. Tilli a/k/a Lorraine Tilli Irrevocable Living Trust (the Trust). The judgment was for money appellant borrowed from his mother, decedent Georgia "Lorraine" Tilli, and did not repay. In her will, decedent vested her residuary estate in the Trust. The Trust documents identified numerous loans decedent had made and instructed the Trustee on how to treat and collect the loans.

Appellant's primary arguments in opposition to the summary judgment motion were these: the sums of money he received were gifts, not loans; the assets securing the loans were owned by the estate; and the net estate was undervalued. On appeal, he argues the following points: Point 1 The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment To Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Awarded on Assets Pre-Disposed.

Point 2 Plaintiff misrepresent [sic] claim.

Point 3 Plaintiff not seeking repayment of House.

Point 4 Defendant maintains gifts, not aware of any loans.

Deposition.

Point 5 Defendants share of Estates.

Having considered appellant's arguments in light of the record and prevailing legal principles, we affirm the judgment, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Robert P. Contillo in his written opinion. The competent evidence on the summary judgment motion record is so one-sided that plaintiff must prevail 2 A-2544-16T1 as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Appellant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

3 A-2544-16T1