This appeal concerns the enforceability of a purported oral settlement in a divorce proceeding. Logically then, the purpose of the rule should be construed as avoiding a dispute over the question of the existence of an agreement or its terms. We now find that OCGA 15-19-5 (Code Ann. 9-605) should be similarly construed, with the requirement of a writing going to the existence of an agreement or its terms. In other words, where the dispute as to an agreement is not between opposing parties but is, rather, between the attorney and client over the attorney's authority, and where the opposite party is ignorant of any limitation upon the attorney's authority, the client will be bound by his attorney's actions. [Id. at 676.] 2. Because "the existence of the agreement" is disputed, the oral agreement is not enforceable. Accordingly, the purported order of settlement must be vacated. Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Alex W. Smith, David M. Brown, for appellant. |