Nenita Angeles v. Alex Uson et al., 31 Mass. L. Rep. 137

The trial court noted that P2 actually received the summonses and copies of the complaint. A nunc pro tunc order was entered under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 235, § 4 authorizing by-hand delivery of process to P2's home under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(5). The service was lawful and effective. The summary process judgment entered when P2 evicted P1 from the property barred P1 from relitigating her claim that the quitclaim deed of the property to P2 was invalid. P1 argued unsuccessfully in the summary process case that the deed was the product of duress. The doctrine of collateral estoppel barred P1 from relitigating that issue. However, the judgment in the summary process action did not bar P1 from challenging the validity of the PDA or from asserting any claims other than her challenges to the deed. Since the PDA was drafted by P2, any ambiguity in it had to be resolved in P1's favor. The forum selection clause was limited by its plain language to claims brought to enforce the PDA and did not ...