Strategic Law, LLC v. Pain Management & Wellness Centers of Georgia, LLC
343 Ga. App. 444
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Strategic Law, LLC (later Stein Law, LLC) sued Pain Management & Wellness Centers of Georgia, LLC and Isaac Cohen in magistrate court for unpaid legal services; Strategic Law prevailed and appellees appealed to state court.
- Strategic Law amended to add a fraud claim and served an OCGA § 9-11-68 offer to settle the tort claim for $3,000; appellees did not accept.
- The parties entered a $3,755 consent judgment and a contemporaneous judgment enforcement agreement requiring staged payments and expressly providing that untimely payment would (among other remedies) entitle Strategic Law to reasonable attorneys’ fees for enforcement.
- The enforcement agreement was signed by appellees but not by Strategic/Stein Law; appellees made the initial $500 but were late on subsequent payments; Strategic Law filed a motion to enforce and motions for attorney fees under the enforcement agreement and OCGA § 9-11-68.
- Before the enforcement hearing appellees paid the judgment balance; the trial court denied fees under the enforcement agreement as unnecessary and denied fees under OCGA § 9-11-68, stating the statute did not apply to consent judgments.
- Strategic Law appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding (1) Strategic Law was entitled to enforcement-fee recovery under the agreement and (2) OCGA § 9-11-68 applies to consent judgments when its numerical threshold is met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strategic Law is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the judgment enforcement agreement for enforcing late payments | Agreement entitles Strategic Law to reasonable fees when payments are untimely; fees were incurred to enforce | Agreement is unenforceable because Strategic Law did not sign; enforcement unnecessary because appellees later paid | Reversed: agreement enforceable (oral/undisputed existence); Strategic Law entitled to enforcement fees; remand to determine amount |
| Whether OCGA § 9-11-68 applies to consent judgments for attorney-fee recovery | § 9-11-68 applies when final judgment exceeds 125% of plaintiff’s rejected offer; consent judgment here meets threshold | § 9-11-68 does not apply to consent judgments, only to judgments after adjudication | Reversed: § 9-11-68 applies to consent judgments; remand for hearing on fees under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 297 Ga. App. 529 (discussing de novo review and contract-construction rules for settlement enforcement)
- Hicks v. Walker, 265 Ga. App. 495 (treating judgment enforcement agreement with consent judgment as enforceable contract)
- Walker v. Lewis, 267 Ga. App. 831 (oral settlement agreements enforceable when existence/terms undisputed)
- Richardson v. Locklyn, 339 Ga. App. 457 (referring to OCGA § 9-11-68 as Georgia’s offer-of-settlement statute)
- Tiller v. RJJB Associates, 331 Ga. App. 622 (describing public policy favoring settlements under § 9-11-68)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault, 280 Ga. 420 (consent judgment differs from merits judgment but has same finality/weight)
- Morgan County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Vantage Products Corp., 323 Ga. App. 823 (consent judgment has same preclusive effect as other final judgments)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (recognizing settlement enforced by consent decree may support fee awards)