[brief] Central to this case is a September 13, 2021 Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), which was heavily negotiated by [...] and [...] over a period of months (with both parties represented by counsel) in the hope of finally putting an end to over a decade of contentious and costly litigation.  The Settlement Agreement—ironically intended to avoid further family strife—clarified the parties’ respective rights and obligations regarding a number of different assets, estates and trusts.  Through this appeal, [...] now seeks to unravel that agreement with claims that are legally baseless in numerous respects.  The main point of contention concerns a valuable parcel of real property located in Palm Beach, Florida (the “Palm Beach Property”).  The Estate of Harriet [...] (“Harriet’s Estate”) holds an undivided 21.5% ownership interest in that asset, which passed upon her death into the Harriet [...] Revocable Trust, dated March 9, 2007 (“Harriet’s Revocable Trust”).  The Settlement Agreement unambiguously establishes that [...] released and discharged any claims, rights or other interests in the Palm Beach Property with the exception of certain limited rights afforded to her under the Robert B. [...] Living Trust dated April 12, 1993.  To solidify that point, the parties included a sentence expressly stating that “for the avoidance of doubt” [...] would “refrain” from asserting any other claims, rights or interests to the Palm Beach Property.  Despite agreeing to the Settlement Agreement’s terms with the benefit of her prior attorneys’ advice, [...] (after several changes of counsel) attempted to disavow the parties’ agreement by advancing a claim to the Palm Beach Property that directly contradicts the Settlement Agreement.  The Trial Court, however, correctly regarded [...]’s attempt to claim the interest of Harriet’s Estate in the Palm Beach Property as “wholly illogical and contradictory” to the plain language of the Settlement Agreement, which both parties asserted is clear and unambiguous.  [...]’s argument below did not stop there.  She also advanced a flawed reading of the terms of Harriet’s estate planning documents in the hope of misleading the Trial Court into believing that she is entitled to the Estate’s interest in the Palm Beach Property.  As explained below, however, Harriet’s Will and Revocable Trust demonstrate the Palm Beach Property was never intended to pass to [...].  Thus, the Trial Court similarly rejected [...]’s position in that regard as “wholly illogical” and inconsistent with Harriet’s probable intent as reflected by her estate planning documents.  The story here is simple.  Having failed to achieve her objectives in years of prior litigation that cost Robert’s Estate over $50 million in legal fees and other expenses, [...] is now trying to rewrite the Settlement Agreement and undermine its chief purpose, which was to prevent the additional contentious litigation now before this Court.  The Trial Court saw through [...]’s transparent efforts to renegotiate the Settlement Agreement and enforced it as written.  The Trial Court also found that, even without the agreement, [...] had no valid claim to the Palm Beach Property.  Because those holdings are correct based on the plain reading of the pertinent documents, [...] respectfully requests that this Court affirm the Trial Court’s May 1, 2023 Order and Opinion in its entirety and bring this matter to a long-awaited conclusion.