In the case of Rose-Terra Investment Inc. v. Butryn, dated April 17, 2023, the plaintiff, Rose-Terra Investments Inc., had filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Anna Marlena Butryn. The legal dispute had arisen when Rose-Terra and Ms. Butryn had entered into a settlement agreement on January 31, 2019, to resolve a mortgage-related conflict. This agreement had stipulated that Ms. Butryn and her husband would pay $2,550,000.00 to Rose-Terra by April 30, 2019. The agreement had also outlined that the mortgage held by Rose-Terra would remain in effect until full payment was made. However, Ms. Butryn had defaulted on her payment obligations under the settlement. Consequently, Rose-Terra had sought to recover $638,800.48 in damages, representing the shortfall in the sale price of the property, sales commissions, property tax arrears, carrying costs, and repair expenses. The property had been sold for $2.25 million, which was $300,000 less than the amount owed according to the settlement. The court had concluded that there were no genuine issues necessitating a trial concerning Rose-Terra's damages claim of $630,800.48, apart from the cost of removed light fixtures valued at $20,384.32. Based on a balance of probabilities, the court had found that Rose-Terra was entitled to damages for all claimed expenses except the light fixture value. Consequently, the court had granted summary judgment in favor of Rose-Terra against Ms. Butryn and had awarded damages totaling $610,416.16.