Cox v. Mayan Lagoon Estates Ltd.

I concur fully with the majority in Case No. A12A1063. In Case No. A12A1062,1 also agree with the majority that Cox’s proffer of the proposed settlement to show Constantino’s agency was not prohibited by OCGA § 24-3-37 and Nevitt v. CMD Realty Investment Fund IV, 282 Ga. App. 533 (639 SE2d 336) (2006), and that the trial court’s reasons for refusing to consider the settlement offer were erroneous. I believe, however, that the settlement offer is not evidence that Constantino was an agent of Mayan and Placencia and that the trial court’s error was harmless. Accordingly, I dissent in part to…