Jamichael Troy Pruitt A/K/A Jamichael Troy Fruitt v. Lisa Maria Thigpen
A21A0331
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Thigpen sued Pruitt after a car collision, alleging he was driving under the influence and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Thigpen served an OCGA § 9-11-68 settlement offer for a global $125,000 in full release of all claims, explicitly allocating $100 to punitive damages; the offer did not specify method of payment.
- Pruitt accepted the offer "without variance." Thigpen had already recovered $25,000 from Pruitt’s insurer, leaving $100,000 owed by Pruitt.
- Thigpen submitted a proposed order; the trial court entered Thigpen’s proposed order as a judgment for $125,000 plus 6.25% interest and stated punitive damages were based on an alleged OCGA § 40-6-391 (DUI) violation.
- Pruitt moved to vacate, arguing the court’s order varied from the settlement (it created a judgment instead of a release/dismissal, failed to allocate $100 to punitive damages, and added a factual DUI basis); he also had submitted an order that tracked the settlement terms.
- The Court of Appeals held the judgment varied from the agreed terms and vacated the order, directing the trial court to enter judgment consistent with the settlement agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thigpen) | Defendant's Argument (Pruitt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of a judgment (rather than dismissal) was erroneous | Settlement acceptance could support entry of judgment; Thigpen sought judgment | Pruitt argued the settlement contemplated a release/dismissal, not a judgment | No reversible error on this point: Pruitt abandoned the objection in the trial court by proposing a judgment order, so nature of disposition is not a basis for reversal |
| Whether the court’s judgment tracked the settlement terms | The judgment reflected full settlement; incidental language was permissible | Judgment deviated by not allocating $100 to punitive damages and by adding a DUI-based finding not in the offer | Court vacated the judgment because it varied from the clear settlement terms; remanded for entry consistent with the parties’ agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Houston Oral Surgeons, LLC, 265 Ga. App. 812 (2004) (settlement enforcement and when court should make settlement the judgment of the court)
- Darby v. Mathis, 212 Ga. App. 444 (1994) (contract construction: plain and unambiguous language controls)
- Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (2017) (offeror is master of the offer and may set its terms)
- Atkinson v. Cook, 271 Ga. 57 (1999) (principle that offeror controls offer terms)
- SunTrust Bank v. Bickerstaff, 349 Ga. App. 794 (2019) (procedural point on motions for reconsideration and preserving arguments)
- Roberts v. Community & Southern Bank, 331 Ga. App. 364 (2015) (procedural waiver principles)