Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Blitch v. WALKER PHARMACY, INC.
Citations: 671 S.E.2d 842; 295 Ga. App. 347; 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 68; 67 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 830; 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1376Docket: A08A2346
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; December 18, 2008; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's decision denying Jennifer Blitch and Chari W. Lotheridge's motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Walker Pharmacy, Inc. The court found that Walker Pharmacy discharged its claim and agreed to pay outstanding attorney fees when its counsel accepted a check from the appellants, which was accompanied by a letter indicating the check was offered in full satisfaction of the settlement. The issue of whether an accord and satisfaction was reached is left to the factfinder unless no genuine issues of material fact exist. Walker Pharmacy initially filed suit to recover a debt, prompting Blitch and Lotheridge to file a third-party complaint against Devra Walker, the pharmacy owner's wife. During a deposition, a proposed settlement was discussed, where each party would pay $50,000 towards the debt, attorney fees, and any remaining balance would go to Walker Pharmacy. However, subsequent communication revealed Walker Pharmacy sought an additional $10,000 from Blitch and Lotheridge. Despite this, Smith, representing Blitch and Lotheridge, sent a check for $100,000 with a letter stating it was full payment per the settlement reached during the deposition. After depositing the check, Walker Pharmacy sent Smith a check for only $4,860, leading to the motion to enforce the settlement. The trial court denied the motion, claiming no meeting of the minds regarding the fees. This appeal referenced OCGA 11-3-311, which outlines conditions under which a claim can be considered fully satisfied when a party in good faith offers payment for a disputed claim. A claim is discharged if the defendant proves that a check or accompanying communication included a clear statement indicating it was offered as full satisfaction of the claim. This rule, rooted in common law, supports informal resolution of disputes through full satisfaction checks. Under OCGA 13-4-103(b)(1), such acceptance does not constitute accord and satisfaction unless a genuine dispute exists or the payment is made under a separate agreement that stipulates satisfaction of the debt. In the case at hand, Smith sent a $100,000 check, accompanied by a letter stating it was for "full payment and satisfaction of the settlement" while also seeking an additional $14,142.86 in attorney fees, amidst a good faith dispute regarding fees. According to OCGA 11-1-201(10), a statement is deemed "conspicuous" if it is easily noticeable to a reasonable person. Consequently, Walker Pharmacy's claim against Blitch and Lotheridge was discharged when its counsel endorsed and deposited the check, which also signified acceptance of the outstanding fee. Citing Curtin v. United Airlines, cashing a check marked for "full and complete settlement" establishes valid accord and satisfaction under UCC 3-311. The Georgia appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for the debtor, ruling that the creditor's endorsement of a check marked as "payment in full," despite being less than the total debt, constituted accord and satisfaction, thereby enforcing the settlement agreement.