Cone v. Dickenson
335 Ga. App. 835
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tameka Cone sued Xavier Dickenson for injuries from an automobile collision, seeking > $30,000.00.
- On November 6, 2014, counsel for both sides had an oral settlement conversation agreeing to $25,000.
- Dickenson’s counsel sent a contemporaneous email confirming settlement for $25,000 in exchange for a full general release and dismissal with prejudice.
- Cone’s counsel states the parties agreed only to a limited liability release; Cone later sent a limited release by certified mail and involved her UM carrier.
- Dickenson moved to enforce the settlement as a general release; Cone filed a cross-motion to enforce settlement as a limited release.
- Trial court granted Dickenson’s motion and denied Cone’s; the Court of Appeals reversed enforcement for Dickenson (finding a jury issue) but affirmed denial of Cone’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cone) | Defendant's Argument (Dickenson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties’ November 6 oral agreement included a general release (bar UM claims) or only a limited release | Cone: agreement was for a limited liability release allowing UM carrier claims | Dickenson: oral agreement accepted general release; email confirmation establishes written memorialization | There is a genuine factual dispute; Cone’s affidavit creates a jury issue. Reversal of trial court’s grant enforcing a general release. |
| Whether Cone’s cross-motion to enforce a limited-release settlement should be granted | Cone: evidence supports enforcing the limited-release terms | Dickenson: email and settlement drafts show agreement to general release, so limited release not agreed | Denied. Because factual conflict exists, court correctly denied Cone’s cross-motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeRossett Enterprises v. GE Capital Corp., 275 Ga. App. 728 (discussing de novo review of motions to enforce settlements)
- Tillman v. Majabi, 331 Ga. App. 415 (letters and payment can establish a full-and-final settlement even if enclosed release form differs)
- City of Albany v. Freeney, 313 Ga. App. 24 (attorney letters can supply written evidence of settlement; failure to answer is a factual presumption)
- Superior Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 229 Ga. App. 45 (distinguishing effect of general versus limited releases on UM claims)