Opinion ID: 1156114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is there a judgment incorporating a property settlement agreement susceptible to review by this court?

Text: A hearing on the appellee's motion to settle journal entry was had on October 7, 1983. Parties on August 31, 1983 had reached a property settlement agreement that was hand-written and signed by both parties and witnessed by the attorneys. The appellee's attorney had prepared a typed written version of what he alleged was the hand-written Property Settlement Agreement signed by the parties and their attorneys. The appellant objected to the type-written version as not being the agreement. The trial court ordered that the hand-written Property Settlement Agreement be the one that was attached to the decree of divorce and incorporated therein. Upon a reading of the Property Agreement it is evident that the agreement is incomplete. The agreement refers to certain lists to determine what property the parties should each receive. However, the lists are not attached to the hand-written version of the agreement. Therefore, the agreement is ambiguous and it is not possible from a reading of the instrument attached to the decree of divorce to determine what the property settlement is. Therefore, it is necessary for the matter to be remanded to the trial court and that the trial court (1) determine the marital estate of the parties and (2) make an equitable division thereof. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. SIMMS, C.J., DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., concur. HODGES and HARGRAVE, JJ., dissenting. We would affirm judgment of the trial court. WILSON, J., disqualified.