Real property – Settlement – Release

Listen to this article

Where a defendant in a dispute over title to real property has filed a motion for summary judgment, that motion should be allowed based on a release in a settlement agreement.

“This is an action by the Plaintiff, James Wiitala, Trustee of the Turcotte Family Irrevocable Trust (‘James’), for declaratory judgment and to try title to the real property located at 75 Algonquin Drive in Tewksbury. The sole beneficiary of the Turcotte Family Irrevocable Trust is Claire Wiitala (‘Claire’). The Defendant, Raymond Turcotte, in his individual capacity and as Trustee of the Raymond L. Turcotte Irrevocable Trust (‘Raymond’), has filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that a settlement agreement executed by Claire and Raymond to resolve a previous action in the Middlesex Probate and Family Court (the ‘Probate Action’) bars James’ claims in this action. …

“Raymond contends that the claims made by James concerning title to 75 Algonquin Drive should be dismissed because Claire released them in Paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement reached in the Probate Action. James counters that the scope of that release did not include claims belonging to the Turcotte Family Irrevocable Trust because Claire was not identified as a trustee of that trust when she signed the Settlement Agreement and, therefore, could not bind the trust. …

“Here, the fundamental question is whether Claire and Raymond intended the release in Paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement to include claims against Raymond, in any capacity or under any circumstances, concerning title to 75 Algonquin Drive. …

“By any fair reading of the Settlement Agreement in its entirety, Claire and Raymond intended the agreement to end all conflicts between them, in whatever form, as they related to title to 75 Algonquin Drive. The broad-sweeping description of persons and claims released — including claims ‘occurring anytime from the beginning of the world until the date of the execution of this Agreement’ — and the fact Raymond owned 75 Algonquin Drive when the parties signed it, support this conclusion. …

“For the reasons set forth in this decision, the court declares that Claire, in all her capacities, intended to release any claims she had against Raymond, in any of his capacities, when she signed the Settlement Agreement. James may not pursue a claim of title to 75 Algonquin Drive on behalf of the trust for which Claire is the sole beneficiary. Raymond’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore allowed. Judgment will issue accordingly.”

Wiitala v. Turcotte (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-008-26) (11 pages) (Smith, J.) (Middlesex Land Court) (Docket No. 25 MISC 000398) (Feb. 6, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.