[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 74 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 25 86 -HTW GE COMMERC IAL DISTRIBUTION FINANCE CORPORATION, d.b .a. Cap it al So lu ti on s fo r th e Hom e Pro du ct s In du st ry , ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HOWARD BALL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Howar d B al l ap pe al s t he co nf irmatio n o f a b in di ng arb it rat io n a wardan d t he Case: 11-13744 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 5de ni al of am ot io n t o e nf or ce an all eg edset tl em en t b etweenGE Comm erci al Div is io n F in an ce Co rp or at io n (“ GECDF”) an d B al l. Onap pe al , Bal l co nt en ds th at he acce pt edGECDF’s set tl em en t o fferin a St ay Agre em en t, b utGECDF th en rep ud ia te d i t. Bal l al so arg ue s h e an d GECDF h av e a b in di ng set tl em en t ag reem en t t o n eg ot ia te th e fo rb eara nc e o f th e ex ecu ti on an d c ol le ct io n o f an y jud gm en t. Acco rd in g t o t he ap pl ic ab le Geor gi a la w, “ [t]o c on st itut e a v al idco nt ract , th ere m us t b e p art ie s ab le to co nt ract , a co ns id erat io n m ov in g t o t he co nt ract , th e as se ntof t he pa rti es to th e te rm s o f th e co nt ract , anda subjec t m at te r up on whi ch th e co nt ractcan op erat e.” O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 1 (2 01 1) . “ The co ns en t o f th e p art ie s be in g e ss en ti al to a co ntract , un ti l ea ch ha s as se nt edto all th e te rm s, the re i s n o bi nd in g c on tra ct ; u nt il ass en te d t o, ea ch pa rty m ay withd raw h is bi d o r pr op os it io n.” O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 2 (2 01 1) . A di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n re ga rd in g t he ex is te nc e o f a v al idco nt ract wil l n otbe setasi de un le ss cle arl y erro ne ou s. Th e cl earl y

erro ne ou s st an dardof r ev ie w app li es to bo thsubs id iary an d u lt im at e fac ts . Co nc ern in g the ex is te nc e o f a co nt ract , th is co urt h as reco gn iz edth atitis lo gi cal forth e rev ie win g c ou rt t o t reatul ti m at e fac ts as m at te rs of l aw th atit m ay de te rm in e in de pe nd en tl y . Dev li n v . Ing ru m , 92 8 F .2d10 84 , 10 90 (11 thCir . 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on s om it te d) . 2

Case: 11-13744 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 5Bal l fi rs t ar gu es th athe an d GECDF b ot h a ss en te d t o t he term s o f th e St ay

Agr eem en t an d tha t GECDF re pu di at edit . Thi s ar gu m en t was no t ra is edbe lo w an d t hu s i s wai ve d. Se e BUC In t’l Co rp . v. In t’l Yach t Co un ci l Lt d., 4 89 F.3d 11 29 , 11 40 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ As a g en eral rul e, we do no t co ns id er i ss ue s n ot pr es en te d i n t he fir stin st an ce t o t he tri al co urt.”) . Howev er, ev enco ns id eri ng th e m eri ts , we eas il y

fin d t ha t t he re was no en fo rceabl e ag reem en t h ere b ecau se GECDF wit hd rew the Stay Agre em en t al m os t t wo wee ks be fo re Ba ll tri edto acce ptit . Thi s was to o l at e to crea te a co nt ractbe cau se , “un ti l as se nt edto , each

1 pa rty m ay

withd raw h is bi d o r pr op os it io n.” O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 2. Bal l n ex t ar gu es th athe an d GECDF e nt eredin to a bi nd in g a gr eem en t t o ne go ti at e th e fo rb eara nc e o f th e arb itrat io n ju dg m en t, as de sc rib edin a Ju ly 29, 20 10 , em ai l fr om

GECDF’s cou ns el to Bal l’s co un se l. We agre e wit h t he di st ric t co urt t ha t Ba ll ne ve r as se nt edto th e te rm s o f anen fo rceabl e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. GECDF m erel y

st at editwas wi ll in g t o “ ne go ti at e so m e type o f fo rb eara nc e o f th e

GECDF’ s counsel sent the Stay Agree ment to Ba ll’s counsel on June 24, 2010, 1 then emailed B all’s counse l on J uly 7, 2010, to indicate that GECDF had cha ng ed its mind and had dec ided to confirm the a rbitration awa

rd. On July

19, 2010, Ba ll tried to acc ept the Stay Agree ment. GECDF the n made a new proposition: Ba ll would have to pay $8,000 by

J uly 23, 2010, and a ne w Stay

Agree ment would be cr eate d. Ba ll’s response did not come until J uly 29, 2010, when he indicated that he had signed the origina l Stay Agree ment and had a

chec k for only $2,000. At that point, GECDF sought to beg in neg otiations on a forbe ara nce a gree ment, as discussed above . Clearly , there was ne ver a meetingof the minds on any version of the Stay Agree ment. 3

Case: 11-13744 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 5ex ecu ti on .” Whi le th e Ju ly 29, 2 01 0, em ai l m en ti on edanin it ia l $ 2,0 00 pa ym en t

an d “ co nt in ue d $ 2,0 00 pa ym en ts ,” cru ci al term s (i .e., th e dur at io n a ndco nd it io ns of th e p aym en ts ) were s ti ll m is si ng fro m th e em ai l. OnAug us t 4 , 20 10 , GECDF’ s co un se l s ta te d v iaem ai l t ha t s he wou ldne edto “ di sc us s t hi s fu rth er wi th GECDF an d g etm or e sp eci fic s o n t erm s t ha t wo ul d b e acc ep tabl e. I as su m e th atso lo ng as $2 ,00 0 m on th ly paym en ts are m ad e, GECDF wou ldag ree n otto en fo rce a ny jud gm en t, b utI wil l co nf irm th atwith you . If th atis th e cas e, we wil l drafta ne w ag reem en t fo r y ou r cl ie nt ’s si gn atur e.” The ne xtda y , GECDF’ s co un se l em ai le d Bal l’s co un se l an d s ai d t ha t GECDF h adde ci de d “ to co nf irm th e arb it rat io n a ward an d t erm in at e an y

set tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s.” Und er Geo rg ialaw, “ [i]t i s wel l es tabl is he d t ha t n o c on tra ctex is ts un ti l al l es se nt ia l t erm s h av e b een ag reedto , andth e fai lu re t o a gr ee t o e ve n o ne ess en ti al te rm m ean s t ha t t he re i s n o a gr eem en t t o b e en fo rced . If a co nt ractfai ls to es tabl is h a n e ss en ti al term , andlea ve s t he set tl in g o f th atterm to be ag reedup on la te r by the pa rti es to th e co nt ract , th e co ntractis de em edanun en fo rceabl e ‘agree m en t t o a gr ee.’” Kreim er v . Kreim er, 5 52 S.E.2d82 6, 8 29 (Ga. 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . In thi s ca se , th e p art ie s h ad , at m os t, an ag reem en t t o a gr ee on th e te rm s o f th e fo rb eara nc e. The p art ie s n ev er ag reedonho w lo ng Bal l wo ul d ha ve to m ak e p aym en ts or wh atot he r co nd it io ns he wou ldne edto m eetin ord er 4 Case: 11-13744 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 5fo r GECDF to en su re p aym en t o f th e arb itrat io n a ward . Alth ou gh GECDF’s

co un se l l at er s ug ge st edth atco nt in uo us $2 ,00 0 p aym en ts wou ldbe sat is fact ory , sh e sp eci fic al ly con di ti on edth aton rece iv in g app ro va l fr om GECDF; an d i n a ny ev en t, s he em ai le d t he ne xtda y to st at e th atGECDF ha d d ecl in edto m ak e su ch an of fer. Be cau se th ere was ne ve r a m eet in g o f th e m in ds on th e sp eci fic term s o f an y fo rb eara nc e ag reem en t, we ag ree wi thth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t t he re was no en fo rceabl e co nt ract . See O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 1; id . § 1 3- 3- 2. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 11-13744 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 5 of 5