Filzer v. Pitsick LLC (24-P-720, Rule 23.0 Decision, 2025)
In what has to be one of the most expensive backyard disputes in recent Massachusetts memory, a panel of the Appeals Court just unanimously affirmed a Superior Court judgment that enforces a hard-fought 2015 settlement agreement—and then slaps the developer with Chapter 93A liability for trying to walk away from it after a Land Court judge handed him a partial victory. The takeaway? If you sign a settlement that expressly says it “shall supersede” any future court decision, don’t be shocked when a court later holds you to it.
The Battlefield: Three 5,000 sq ft Nonconforming Lots on Goddard Street, Newton
- Lot 110: Had an old house on it since the 1920s
- Lots 109 & 111: Vacant, wooded, each 50 ft wide × 100 ft deep (5,000 sq ft)
- Newton zoning eventually required 10,000 sq ft minimums → all three lots became legally nonconforming
Developer Stephen Pitrowski and his company Pitsick LLC buy the three lots in 2011, promptly pull permits, and start digging foundations on the two vacant ones. Abutters lose their minds, demand the building commissioner revoke the permits, and when he refuses, they drag everyone into the Land Court.
The Secret Settlement That Almost Worked
While cross-motions for summary judgment are pending in the Land Court, the parties do something clever—but also a little sneaky:
On April 6, 2015, the abutters, Pitsick, Pitrowski, the owner of lot 110, and even Pitsick’s construction lender (MountainOne Bank) all sign a global settlement agreement that contains some very unusual provisions:
- Pitsick will pay the abutters $80,000
- Everyone will support a special permit to redivide the three lots into two (7,000 + 8,000 sq ft)
- Pitsick will finish the house already 95% built on lot 109
- Lot 111 will be restored to its natural state and subjected to a 30-year restrictive covenant barring almost all construction
- A new driveway and tiny garage will be allowed, but strictly limited
- Most importantly: the agreement explicitly says it “shall be binding … and shall supersede in force and effect any judgment or order issued by the Land Court” on the pending motions
- And to top it off, the parties agree NOT to tell the Land Court judge about the deal until everything is done
Two weeks later, the Land Court judge—who of course knows nothing about the settlement—drops a lengthy decision:
- Lot 109 is a standalone buildable lot (good for Pitsick)
- Lots 110 & 111 merged decades ago by operation of law (bad for Pitsick)
- The building permit for lot 109 is reinstated, but lot 111 is dead in the water
Pitrowski immediately smells blood in the water. Instead of honoring the settlement, he tries to renegotiate a “better deal” now that he’s won on lot 109. When the abutters ask for written assurance he’ll still perform, he refuses, declares the agreement “null and void,” and stops communicating.
The Superior Court Fight
The abutters sue in Superior Court for breach of contract and Chapter 93A. After cross-motions, a judge grants partial summary judgment for the abutters:
- The settlement expressly contemplated a possible adverse Land Court ruling and said it would supersede any such ruling
- The Land Court judgment did not make performance impossible or frustrate the purpose of the deal
- Pitsick’s attempt to back out = anticipatory repudiation + breach of the covenant of good faith
After a bench trial on the 93A claim, the same judge finds that Pitrowski used the Land Court win as leverage to extract a sweeter deal from the neighbors—an unfair and deceptive practice. Damages: the original $80,000 plus $15,000 nominal, statutory interest, and attorney’s fees (single damages only; the judge found it wasn’t willful or knowing).
The Appeals Court: “Nice Try, But No.”
A unanimous panel affirms everything. Highlights from the Rule 23.0 decision:
- Impossibility/Frustration of Purpose → Rejected The settlement literally had a clause saying it would trump any Land Court judgment. You can’t claim “unanticipated circumstances” when you anticipated them in the contract itself.
- The core of the deal wasn’t the lot redivision anyway The heart of the compromise was letting Pitsick finish the house on lot 109 (which the Land Court decision actually helped) in exchange for cash and permanent protection of lot 111. Pitsick finished and sold the house. Mission accomplished on their end.
- Bad-faith repudiation was crystal clear from the e-mails Once the developer refused to confirm he would perform and started demanding the agreement be declared “null and void,” the abutters were justified in filing protective motions in the Land Court. Pitsick’s later claim that those filings triggered some escape clause was nonsense—the clause only applied to conditions imposed by the city on the special permit, and only if noticed within 10 days.
- Chapter 93A liability sticks Using a favorable court ruling to try to squeeze a better deal out of the other side after you’ve already signed a settlement is textbook “unfair trade practice” under Anthony’s Pier Four and its progeny.
- Interest runs from the original complaint Even though the lender had agreed to hold the $80,000 in escrow pending the enforceability fight, Pitsick itself blocked disbursement. They don’t get to benefit from their own breach.
The panel also awarded the abutters their appellate attorney’s fees under Chapter 93A.
Bottom Line for Developers, Land-Use Lawyers, and Feuding Neighbors
- If you draft a settlement that says it survives an adverse court ruling, you’re stuck with it.
- Hiding the settlement from the judge might feel clever, but when the judge rules anyway, you’d better honor the deal.
- Trying to renegotiate after you get a partial win looks an awful lot like extortion wrapped in legalese—and Chapter 93A has teeth for exactly that behavior.
Final result: Judgment affirmed in full, plus appellate fees to come. Somewhere in Newton, a group of abutters just popped champagne on a deck that will never have to look at another foundation hole on lot 111.
Case citation: Filzer v. Pitsick LLC, 24-P-720 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025)