TILLER v. RJJB ASSOCIATES, LLP Et Al.
331 Ga. App. 622
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Tiller sued multiple defendants for injuries after slipping on water at 4380 Memorial Drive; amended complaint substituted Memorial Associates, LLC for a fictitious defendant.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to one defendant (RJJB) but denied summary judgment as to Argo and J.C. Penney; later granted Argo and J.C. Penney’s second summary judgment.
- While litigation was pending, Argo and J.C. Penney served a $1,000 OCGA § 9-11-68 settlement offer that required dismissal with prejudice, a full release, indemnification for subrogation/lien claims, and an affidavit regarding liens.
- Tiller did not accept within 30 days; the offer was deemed rejected. After final judgment of no liability as to Argo/J.C. Penney, those defendants moved for fees under OCGA § 9-11-68.
- The trial court awarded $24,696.28 in attorney fees and costs to Appellees; Tiller appealed, arguing the offer failed statutory requirements and was not made in good faith and that fee proof was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OCGA § 9-11-68 offer identified generally the claims it sought to resolve | Tiller: offer ambiguous—unclear if it required relinquishing claims against co-defendant Memorial (against whom she had a default on liability) | Appellees: reference to the original complaint shows intent to settle only claims against them | Court: Offer ambiguous; failed § 9-11-68(a)(3) identification requirement; reversal of fee award |
| Whether the offer stated with particularity its relevant conditions under § 9-11-68(a)(4) | Tiller: dismissal language and release/indemnity terms unclear as to scope (singular "Defendant" vs entire action); material terms uncertain | Appellees: conditions were sufficient to show their intent | Court: Conditions not stated with required particularity; no meeting of minds on material scope; offer invalid for fee-shifting purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Great West Cas. Co. v. Bloomfield, 303 Ga. App. 26 (discusses particularity requirement for offer of settlement)
- Ga. Dept. of Corrections v. Couch, 295 Ga. 469 (policy favoring settlements and the statute’s purpose)
- Graham v. HHC St. Simons, 322 Ga. App. 693 (no enforceable contract where no meeting of the minds on material terms)
- Reichard v. Reichard, 262 Ga. 561 (all essential contract terms must be agreed to)
- Basha v. Mitsubishi Motor Credit of America, 336 F.3d 451 (offers must give plaintiffs a clear baseline to evaluate settlement)
- Moore v. Hecker, 250 F.R.D. 682 (scope of settlement and released parties is a material element)