Johnson v. DeKalb County
314 Ga. App. 790
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellants sued DeKalb County in November 2007 for injunctive relief and damages from stormwater drainage causing erosion.
- During ADR, DeKalb proposed a Concept Plan to fix the drainage issues; Appellants reviewed with their own consultant.
- December 29, 2010, Appellants sent seven settlement terms by email; mediation followed with an offer/counteroffer dynamic.
- DeKalb offered to implement the Concept Plan and pay $10,000; Appellants countered with $55,000 and plan modifications.
- February 26, 2011, Appellants proposed $45,000 plus Concept Plan; DeKalb asserted authority to settle for $115,000 total (including $35,000).
- March 1, 2011, DeKalb reiterated the offer would not change; Appellants accepted the original offer via counsel, indicating terms were met except for pre-agreed items; DeKalb moved to finalize a written settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement existed | Appellants contend no final agreement; only negotiations. | DeKalb County argues March 1, 2011 email created a mutual binding agreement asserting both parties' terms. | Enforceable settlement found; mutual agreement on key terms. |
| Statute of Frauds applicability | Settlement could not be enforced because it depended on land-related easements. | Statute of Frauds does not apply to settlements; written memorialization via emails suffices. | Not bar to enforcement; emails memorialized terms sufficiently. |
| Burden of proof on motion to enforce | Record shows ongoing negotiations, not a concluded agreement. | Record shows definitive agreement on essential terms and proper memorialization. | Burden met; no genuine issue for trial; enforceable settlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pourreza v. Teel Appraisals, 273 Ga.App. 880 (2005) (written memorials can suffice to form a binding settlement)
- DeRossett Enterprises v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 275 Ga.App. 728 (2005) (enforceability requires an agreement on essential terms; view evidence in light favoring nonmovant)
- Lamb v. Decatur Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 201 Ga.App. 583 (1991) (a counteroffer can renew negotiations rather than terminate them)
- Rakusin v. Radiology Assoc. of Atlanta, 305 Ga.App. 175 (2010) (offer is a manifestation inviting assent to conclude a bargain)
- Capitol Materials v. Kellogg & Kimsey, Inc., 242 Ga. App. 584 (2000) (attorney's letter can memorialize terms for Statute of Frauds purposes)
- Moreno v. Strickland, 255 Ga.App. 850 (2002) (enforceability where terms memorialized by counsel communications)
- Triple Eagle Assoc. v. PBK, Inc., 307 Ga.App. 17 (2010) (SoF analysis in settlement context; transfer of land not required for settlement)