New Developments in Town of Westwood v. Westwood Land Trust Superior Court Lawsuit on Jan.23. —A Plain English Update

Note: All pleadings are available to read or download, at https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page.2. Search by Superior Court/ Norfolk Division then choose tab for docket number, using 2582CV00808

*      *      *      *      *     *      *      *      *      *    *    *    *    *    *   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
After seven weeks of inactivity in this Norfolk Superior Court lawsuit, more pleadings have been filed by both the  Town of Westwood and Westwood Land Trust, the litigation fee meters are running.

In this summary, “The Land” is used to refer to 665 Clapboardtree Street. The Westwood Land Trust refers to the Land as Clapboardtree Meadow.  The Town of Westwood’s  pleadings refer to the Land as Prout Farm. The Land is part of a 29 acre parcel that includes meadow, wetlands and forest, all at 665 Clapboardtree Street, all subject to a conservation restriction that runs in perpetuity.

Key legal terms :

Judgment on the Pleadings: where the judge hands down a final decision solely on the basis of the initial filings, usually the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s answer. Sometimes the defendant will make a counterclaim against the plaintiff. Judgment on the pleadings is not all that common; it means the judge finds that all facts in the Complaint or the Counterclaim are true, and decides only on the law.

Affirmative defenses: in a civil case, various grounds the defendant raises to assert that other legal reasons—unclean hands, statute of limitations, applicable state or federal laws, laches (waiting too long to file the lawsuit), waiver or fraud --prevent the plaintiff from winning.

Where the Case Is as of Friday, January 23, 2026

1/23/2026

The Westwood Land Trust’s counsel filed a Motion to Amend the Answer to the Town’s Original Complaint filed in October 2025, as well as a Counterclaim against the Town of Westwood.

In specific terms, Land Trust moved to add what are called “affirmative defenses” to the Town’s claim (to find out more about the Town’s complaint against Land Trust, see my Previous Summary, at https://westwoodminute.town.news/g/westwood-ma/post/349076/summary-town-westwood-v-westwood-land-trust-inc-norfolk-superior-court). The Land Trust also submitted a redlined version of the motion with its proposed amendments  for the Court’s review.

Land Trust asks the judge to grant the Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim.

1/23/2026

In response, the Town of Westwood’s counsel filed an Opposition to Westwood Land Trust’s Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim, saying that this motion “seeks to add redundant and/or frivolous defenses and claims” already stated in Land Trust’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and at the oral argument on December 3, 2025  before Judge Connolly.

The Town also argues that the Land Trust’s motion to amend is “futile,” because Land Trust’s motion merely restates its claim in its initial Answer, that Westwood Town Meeting’s vote in May 2001 to transfer the land to the control of the Conservation Committee placed further limits—beyond those of the Conservation Restriction—on uses of the Land, explicitly excluding agriculture and farming.

The Town asks the Court either to deny the Land Trust’s Motion to Amend its Answer and Counterclaim, or to take no action until it rules on the pending cross -motions for Judgment on the Pleadings.

In response to the Town’s opposition to the Land Trust’s Motion to Amend its Complaint and Counterclaim, the Westwood Land Trust filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion.

The Land Trust cites Massachusetts case law, arguing that the Town has not raised any conventional grounds for the Court to deny a motion to amend; the Town has not asserted that the motion is untimely, or “brought in bad faith or with a dilatory motive…Nor does it claim undue prejudice [to the Town’s position in the lawsuit] if the motion is allowed.”

To support its position that the proposed amendments to its original answer are not “redundant,” Land Trust’s Memorandum also includes an extended analysis of Article 97 of Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that land taken for conservation purposes cannot be used for other purposes except by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature, and how this pertains to this particular lawsuit.

The Land Trust also argues that the 2001 Westwood Town Meeting vote to transfer control of the Land from the Select Board to the conservation commission raises the question of whether the Town Meeting vote makes the conservation commission "the only party with standing to prosecute the claims in the complaint. " Thus, says the Land Trust, these issues are not redundant, and the motion to amend should be allowed.

Now the judge has two matters before her to rule on: (1) whether to grant or deny the parties' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, and (2) whether to allow the Land Trust to Amend its Answer and Counterclaim.

As the Town of Westwood points out in its Opposition memo, “…the decision [whether to grant a motion to Amend Answer and/or Counterclaim] lies within the broad discretion of a trial judge.”

And as I and my fellow students were taught in law school, never predict what a judge will do. You’d have better luck predicting the odds at Foxwoods.