Wiederhold v. Wheeler

Harmut Wiederhold and others hereinafter collectively “Wiederhold” appeal from the trial court’s order entering judgment against Wiederhold and in favor of the appellees1 in the amount of $350,000 based on a settlement agreement that Wiederhold moved to enforce, and a $350,000 consent judgment signed by Wiederhold. On appeal Wiederhold now attempts to claim, among other things, that the settlement agreement was too indefinite to enforce, and that the trial court erred in failing to treat the settlement agreement that Wiederhold moved to enforce as a novation of a prior settlement agreement with which Wiederhold had failed to comply. We discern no error and affirm. The record reveals that on June 7, 2000, Wiederhold entered into a “Mutual Release, Settlement Agreement, and Covenant Not To Sue” hereinafter the “First Settlement Agreement” with Wheeler to resolve certain litigation between them. Pursuant to the First Settlement Agreement, Wiederhold was required to make two payments to Wheeler, amounting to a total of $250,000 plus interest. The First Settlement Agreement further required Wiederhold to make payments on a note in favor of Commercial Bank of Georgia the “CBG Note”.

When Wiederhold failed to make one of the payments pursuant to the First Settlement Agreement and failed to make payments pursuant to two subsequent modifications to the agreement, Wheeler sued Wiederhold for breaching the First Settlement Agreement. In an attempt to resolve the case, on January 31, 2002, Wheeler entered another settlement agreement with Wiederhold the “Second Settlement Agreement”. Under the Second Settlement Agreement, Wiederhold agreed 1 to pay Wheeler $15,000 on or before February 11, 2002, 2 to pay an additional $190,000 to Wheeler by March 22 or only $185,000 if paid on or before March 1, 3 to sign a consent judgment within five days of the settlement in the amount of $350,000 plus twelve percent interest accruing from March 22 through the date of collection which judgment would not be filed unless Wiederhold failed to make timely payments, and 4 that the payment procedures under the Second Settlement Agreement would remain consistent with the terms of the First Settlement Agreement. The parties further agreed to sign mutual releases upon satisfaction of the payments to be made under the Second Settlement Agreement. At no point was there any mention in the Second Settlement Agreement that such agreement was meant to supercede the terms of the First Settlement Agreement.