Lucilio P. Furtado v. Maria Goncalves, as of the Estate of Alfredo D. Goncalves
2013 R.I. LEXIS 53
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Alfredo D. Goncalves died, probate contested by Lucilio and Patricia who later mediated a settlement with Maria Goncalves as executrix.
- Mediation produced a written agreement conditioned on plaintiffs delivering General Releases in form acceptable to the Estate.
- General Releases drafted by Maria included broad geographic scope, notably claims arising in Cape Verde, which plaintiffs wanted removed.
- Plaintiffs argued the Cape Verde claims were not contemplated during mediation; defendant contended releases encompassed all claims per the agreement.
- Trial court found the settlement unambiguous and required plaintiffs to sign the releases and ordered reimbursement of attorney’s fees to Maria under § 9-1-45.
- This Court vacated the judgment, holding the general releases exceeded the settlement’s unambiguous terms and remanded to reform releases without geographic references.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in enforcing the settlement by requiring the releases? | Furtado argued releases altered the settlement's scope, especially Cape Verde property not contemplated. | Goncalves claimed releases unambiguously covered all claims worldwide as drafted in the General Release. | No; court vacated enforcement due to broader language beyond settlement term. |
| Did the trial court err in concluding the releases mirrored the settlement terms? | Terms materially changed the content and effect of the mediated agreement. | Language reasonably encompassed all claims as part of the releases. | Yes; releases exceeded the settlement's unambiguous scope and must be reformed. |
| Was attorney’s fees under § 9-1-45 properly awarded to the executrix? | No prevailing party since releases were not enforceable as drafted. | Prevailing party entitled to fees for enforcing the agreement. | No; § 9-1-45 not satisfied because prevailing-party status was not established. |
| Should the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion? | Remand unnecessary if agreement already enforceable. | Remand needed to align releases with the settlement. | Yes; remand with reform of releases to remove geographic references. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Gagnon, 847 A.2d 280 (R.I. 2004) (contract-like treatment of settlements; interpretation rules)
- Derderian v. Essex Insurance Co., 44 A.3d 122 (R.I. 2012) (ambiguity determination and contract interpretation de novo)
- Papudesu v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island, 18 A.3d 495 (R.I. 2011) (contract interpretation and extrinsic evidence limits)
- Bliss Mine Road Condominium Association v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 11 A.3d 1078 (R.I. 2010) (ambiguity and meaning of terms in contracts)
- Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc./Franki Foundation Co. v. Gill, 652 A.2d 440 (R.I. 1994) (contract interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
- Garden City Treatment Center, Inc. v. Coordinated Health Partners, Inc., 852 A.2d 535 (R.I. 2004) (interpretation of contractual language; extrinsic evidence limits)
- Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. v. Antonelli, 790 A.2d 1113 (R.I. 2002) (narrow review of trial decisions on contract judgments)
- Homar, Inc. v. North Farm Associates, 445 A.2d 288 (R.I. 1982) (settlement agreements can be enforced as judgments)
- Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Star Equipment Corp., 541 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (enforcement of settlement agreements; contract-like remedy)