Summary
In Devereaux, the plaintiff's attorney orally offered to settle the underlying suit and later mailed a letter to the defendants confirming the offer.
Summary of this case from Ford v. Citizens Southern Nat. BankOpinion
68774.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 1984.
Action for damages. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Alverson.
Barry L. Zimmerman, for appellant.
Robert W. Maddox, Richard K. Hines, Taylor Tapley Daly, for appellees.
Dorothy Jean Devereaux appeals a judgment entered in her favor based on a settlement agreement she purportedly reached with the appellee-defendants. The suit is based on the alleged wrongful repossession and subsequent sale of the plaintiff's automobile. During a pre-trial conference, Ms. Devereaux's attorney verbally offered to settle the case for $5,000, and he mailed a letter to the defendants the following day confirming this offer. The defendants accepted the offer in writing two days later. However, counsel for the plaintiff asserts, and has stated in his place, that after he mailed the offer but prior to the defendants' acceptance, he informed them, through their attorneys, that the plaintiff had withdrawn his authority to settle for $5,000. The trial court treated the issue as a non-jury matter and ruled that plaintiff's counsel had full authority to make the settlement offer. Consequently, the court entered judgment based on the purported settlement. Held:
An attorney has apparent authority to enter into a settlement agreement on behalf of a client; and the client will be bound by such agreement, even in the absence of express authority, where the opposite party is unaware of any limitation on the attorney's authority. See Brumbelow v. Northern c. Co., 251 Ga. 674 ( 308 S.E.2d 544) (1983); Lennon v. Aeck Assoc., 157 Ga. App. 294 (4) ( 277 S.E.2d 289) (1981). See also Glazer v. J. C. Bradford Co., 616 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1980). In the instant case, the issue of whether the defendants were apprised prior to their acceptance of the settlement offer that plaintiff was no longer willing to settle the case for $5,000 was a factual question to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ordering that the settlement agreement be enforced.
Judgment reversed. Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.