Opinion ID: 2584589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: It Was Error To Accept The List Of Personal Property Provided By Sheila As The Stipulated Division And Valuation.

Text: On the last day of trial, the parties told the court that they would meet to divide the personal property by stipulation. In October 2007 when the parties met for an oral decision on the record, Sheila's counsel presented the court with Attachment A-Y, which she said was the stipulated division that the parties had earlier agreed to in court. The court appeared to agree with Sheila that the amounts had been agreed to in court. Richard's counsel contested this, said that no stipulation had been reached, and said he would obtain a transcript showing that he in fact had only agreed to work later with Sheila on a written stipulation. He also told the court that he would file a motion for reconsideration with the transcript so that the division of the rest of the property could be ruled on that day. During this exchange, Richard's counsel did not state that his client agreed with Attachment A-Y. Sheila asserts that Richard's attorney agreed to the settlement in open court, and that Richard did not object, but Sheila provides no evidence of this assertion beyond citing to the discussion above, which does not support that assertion. When Richard filed his motion for reconsideration with the transcript of the relevant exchange in open court, the transcript included the court's statement that the parties would meet to further work out personal property division: [A]ll the parties are going to get together and see what they can do with the [property division].... Given that this was the only discussion of the matter, and that Richard clearly objected at the October 2007 hearing to the claim that he had entered into a stipulation, it was error to base judgment on Attachment A-Y. Richard also points out an unexplained variance between the expert's appraisal of the value of Sheila's personal property and the amount the court credited her with having received. The appraisal report itself appears to be the source of the error. The report consists of columns, one for Sheila and one for Richard, with the value of each item allocated according to the property division. At the bottom of each page, there is a total handwritten at the bottom of the columns. When they are added together, the total is $28,450. However, the typewritten total for all the property at the end of the valuation is $12,391. Sheila offers no explanation of the difference. We therefore remand for fact-finding regarding whether the parties ever reached an agreement regarding the personal property, and, if not, for further proceedings as necessary to reach an equitable division of the parties' personal property.