In re Estate of Huff

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals from the denial of its motion to enforce a settlement agreement and its petition for declaratory judgment, contending that the trial court erred in ruling that Liberty had not reached a settlement agreement with the estate of Harlan E. Huff. Because there was evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the estate had not entered into the proposed settlement agreement with Liberty, we affirm. “On a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, we construe the evidence to uphold the trial court’s judgment. We will not disturb a trial court’s findings thereon unless clearly erroneous.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Griffin v. Wallace. 1 We note that Liberty disputes this standard of review, arguing that, because the trial court conducted a hearing, as opposed to a bench trial, the motion was analogous to a motion for summary judgment, requiring a de novo review. However, because the question here turns on a factual issue resolved by the trial court after considering evidence presented and admissions made by attorneys as to the status of the settlement agreement, we treat resolution of such factual issues as subject to the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. See Peacock v. Spivey 2 “on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, we . . . will not disturb a trial court’s findings thereon unless clearly erroneous” punctuation omitted. Under this standard we will uphold the trial court’s factual findings if there is any evidence to support them. Morrow v. Vineville United Methodist Church .3

So construed, the record shows that in December 2002, as Harlan Huff was driving with son Josh Huff in the car, their vehicle was in a single-car crash which killed Harlan and seriously injured Josh. Harlan’s wife Patricia served as the executrix of Harlan’s estate. After Liberty Harlan’s insurance carrier did not satisfy Josh’s time-limited demands for payment of the $100,000 policy limit of Harlan’s insurance, Josh sued the estate in federal court, ultimately winning a verdict of $300,000, which was reduced to $278,806.40.