Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Surgeons, P.C., 266 Ga. App. 696, 699-700 (1) (598 SE2d 12) (2004); see also OCGA § 13-2-2 (5) (“If the construction is doubtful, that which goes most strongly against the party executing the instrument or undertaking the obligation is generally to he preferred!.]”); Hertz Equip. Rental Corp. v. Evans, 260 Ga. 532, 533 (397 SE2d 692) (1990) (citing to OCGA § 13-2-2 (5) for the proposition that “if a contract is capable of being construed two ways, it will be construed against the preparer and in favor of the non-preparer”). 17 See OCGA § 10-6-53 (“The form in which the agent acts is immaterial; if the principal’s name is disclosed and the agent professes to act for him, it will be held to he the act of the principal.”); Dover v. Burns, 186 Ga. 19, 21-22, 29 (3) (196 SE 785) (1938) (<HOLDING>); Tiller v. Spradley, 39 Ga. 35, 35-38 (1869) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error (B) holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt (C) holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services (D) holding that attorneys fees were nondischargeable as maintenance even though award was in favor of attorneys not spouse because it was rendered in light of the financial resources of the parties (E) holding that attorneys brothersinlaw were not rendered personally liable in settlement of attorneys accounts when the agreement described the brothersinlaw as agents of the attorney
Output (English): holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt