Olmstead Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Washington
341 Ga. App. 524
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Olmstead Homeowners Association sued Reginald Washington to collect unpaid assessments, foreclose a statutory lien, and recover attorney fees.
- Parties mediated at the trial-court calendar call and reached a written settlement: Washington would pay a judgment of $18,342.75, make an immediate partial payment, and propose a payment plan to the board by August 11, 2016; if no plan was agreed, the Association could pursue collection including foreclosure.
- The Association states the parties submitted the settlement to the court as a consent judgment; Washington did not dispute that statement on appeal.
- The trial court’s entered final order, however, did not reflect the settlement terms: it awarded $12,041 judgment, set $350/month payments starting Sept. 1, 2016, and provided that three months’ consecutive default would allow execution for the full amount; the order noted mediation but did not adopt the parties’ agreement.
- The trial court treated attorney fees as unresolved and made no express finding about the enforceability of the mediated agreement.
- Because the court’s order did not acknowledge or incorporate the settlement, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the parties’ agreement is sufficiently definite and, if so, to enforce it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must enforce the parties’ mediated settlement as entered | Association: parties reached a definite, written settlement and presented it as a consent judgment; court must adopt it | Washington: (no brief contesting the facts on appeal) impliedly that court could modify or decline to enforce | Court: vacated judgment and remanded for trial court to determine whether the settlement is definite, and if so to enforce it; trial court must not impermissibly modify terms |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly modified settlement terms by entering a different judgment | Association: trial court erred by issuing an order inconsistent with the agreement | Washington: no contested appellate argument in record | Court: could not tell whether modification or a finding of unenforceability occurred; remand required to clarify and correct if modification occurred |
| Whether the trial court properly left attorney fees unresolved despite a settlement | Association: fees were part of the settlement framework and should have been addressed | Washington: no appellate response in record | Court: because trial court did not reference the settlement, could not determine whether omission was intentional; remanded for clarification |
| Appropriate remedy for a judgment that conflicts with a mediated settlement | Association: judgment should be vacated and settlement entered as judgment | Washington: (no opposing brief) | Court: vacated the judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion, leaving it to trial court to enforce or rule on enforceability of the settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Williams, 194 Ga. App. 405 (1990) (trial courts are required to accept settlements agreed to by the parties)
- DeKalb County v. Everhard, 242 Ga. 104 (1978) (definite, certain, and unambiguous settlement agreements should be made the judgment of the court)
- Allen v. Sea Garden Seafood, 290 Ga. 715 (2012) (trial court erred by entering an order that modified the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement)