Smith v. Hall, 311 Ga. App. 99

This is an appeal from a trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement in a Georgia personal injury case against Roxanne Hall.
Smith offered to settle for $25,000, the policy limits, in a letter stating the offer would terminate at 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2010 and that any deviation or delay in acceptance would be an automatic rejection.
Hall’s counsel, extending the deadline, sent a letter stating acceptance and included a $25,000 check plus proposed release documents, while noting possible Limited Liability Release if other insurance existed.
Smith’s counsel later returned the check and documents, arguing they were not an acceptance but a rejection and counteroffer.
The trial court granted enforcement of the settlement; the issue on appeal is whether Hall’s acceptance formed a contract to settle the case.
The Georgia Court of Appeals held that Hall’s acceptance was valid and rejected Smith’s counteroffer critique, applying Herring v. Dunning and Moreno v. Strickland as controlling authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hall’s response was an acceptance	Smith argues no acceptance; Hall conditioned on release broader than sole defendant	Hall’s letter unequivocally accepted the demand for settlement	Acceptance found; contract formed

Johnson v. Martin, 142 Ga. App. 311, 235 S.E.2d 728 (Ga. App. 1977) (no settlement where release broadens scope of release beyond offer)
Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695, 446 S.E.2d 199 (Ga. App. 1994) (acceptance can terminate litigation even if release not expressly promised)
Moreno v. Strickland, 255 Ga. App. 850, 567 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. App. 2002) (release terms may be discussed but are not necessary for acceptance)
Frickey v. Jones, 274 Ga. App. 398, 618 S.E.2d 29 (Ga. App. 2005) (settlement acceptance can be valid even with later release negotiations)