In a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle collision, we granted Robert Baldwin’s application seeking interlocutory review of the denial of his motion to enforce a settlement agreement with John Adams. Because the trial court erred in concluding that Baldwin and Adams had not reached a settlement agreement, we reverse. “A trial court’s order on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement based on undisputed facts is subject to de novo review.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Mealer v. Kennedy , 290 Ga. App. 432 659 SE2d 809 2008. The undisputed record evidence shows that, on August 3, 2005, Baldwin and Adams were involved in an automobile accident in which Adams, a passenger in one of the vehicles, sustained injuries. Adams originally sued Baldwin in Carroll County, dismissed the case without prejudice after an unsuccessful effort at mediation, and then re-filed in Cobb County on November 15, 2008. Before perfecting service of the re-filed complaint, Adams’ attorney sent Baldwin’s attorney a letter dated January 16, 2009, stating: “I am authorized to say that if your client will offer $17,500.00 in settlement of the case, my client, John Adams, will accept it.” On January 27, 2009, Baldwin’s attorney responded with an email stating that he had “received authority in the amount of $17,500.00,” that the “case is settled” for that amount, and that a check would be sent “along with the release documents.” Adam’s attorney responded: “OK.” On February 2, 2009, Baldwin’s attorney sent Adams’ attorney a letter formally acknowledging the settlement agreement, a check for $17,500, a general release, a dismissal with prejudice, and a medical lien affidavit. On March 11, 2009, Adams’ attorney sent letters to Adams’ medical providers informing them that the case had been settled for $17,500 and that, after fees and expenses, Adams had limited funds to pay his remaining medical bills. Adams’ attorney sought proposed payment reductions, and obtained at least one. It is patent from the record that Adams’ attorney was aware that the settlement funds would be insufficient to cover Adams’ existing debts and that he had, in fact, advised Adams to begin making payments to at least one provider.
When the settlement documents were not timely signed and returned, Baldwin’s attorney asked for an update. Adams’ attorney responded: “Mr. Adams has not yet signed the settlement documents. We have had several telephone conversations with him since you sent us the documents. We have requested that he sign them as soon as possible to avoid a motion to enforce the settlement.” On March 24, 2009, Baldwin’s attorney received a letter from Adams indicating that he would not sign the settlement documents. Baldwin’s attorney forwarded the letter to Adams’ attorney, commenting that it appeared that “Adams was trying to back out of the settlement.” Adams attorney responded, stating that “you may have to file a motion to enforce the settlement,” that he “would not be in a position to oppose such a motion,” and that Adams had “specifically authorized $17,500.00.” In a letter dated May 11, 2009, Adams’ attorney informed his client: “I settled your case. I followed the directives you instructed me to do. Subsequently, we sent you the release and settlement documents for you to sign. . . . Under Georgia law when an attorney settles a case based upon express authorization of the client the settlement is effective.”
