Opinion ID: 2366295
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Settlement On The Record

Text: At the start of negotiations, Ken and his attorney provided the court with a document called the Revised Settlement Spreadsheet (Ken's spreadsheet), a list of all assets and liabilities to be divided between the parties. [1] Ken's spreadsheet placed a value on each item and assigned each item to either Ken or Rebecca. Adding up the values by column, Ken's spreadsheet showed the Total Assets and Debts of the parties as $319,287.18 for Ken and $413,529.28 for Rebecca. Below this appeared an item called Payment to Equalize; on this row, $47,121.04 was added to Ken's column and the same amount was subtracted from Rebecca's column. Below this, Ken's spreadsheet listed the ultimate Total, including the equalization payment, as $366.408.22 for each party. Although all settlement talks took place off the record, it is clear that Ken's spreadsheet played a large part in the negotiations. When the settlement was put on the record later that afternoon, the court said, the parties and I have been working principally off Ken's spreadsheet in crafting the settlement. When the court recited the agreed-upon distribution of several major items  the marital residence, vehicles, lawsuit proceeds, insurance, and retirement plans  the distribution matched that provided on Ken's spreadsheet. The court also stated that all the rest of the property as reflected on [Ken's spreadsheet] and all of the personal property as previously indicated on [Ken's] personal property spreadsheet . . . will each respectively go to the . . . spouse indicated. . . . Then in terms of the debts, they're going to be divided as indicated on Ken's spreadsheet. Finally, the court said at the end of the day to make a payment to ultimately settle the case . . . [Ken] has offered and [Rebecca] has accepted to receive a payment of $47,121.04 upon the refinancing of the marital home.  [2] Assuming that this means that Ken has offered to pay $47,121.04 to Rebecca, [3] this is the opposite of the Equalization Payment item from Ken's spreadsheet, which showed the same amount being paid to Ken from Rebecca. Neither Ken nor his attorney objected. In a brief exchange that followed, the court asked Ken whether he could refinance the marital home within 60 days. Ken promised he would try, and the court said: If you come into a glitch in any respect that looks like it's going to cause delay, let [Rebecca] know, just so that [she's] not on the 59th day expecting to receive a check. . . . Again, neither Ken nor his attorney objected. Although the court made frequent reference to Ken's spreadsheet, it made clear that the parties were not adopting the spreadsheet wholesale; specifically, the court emphasized that the parties could not come to agreement on the values of particular items, but rather had agreed to disagree on values and settle on the basis of an item-by-item distribution. The attorneys questioned their clients regarding the settlement agreement. Both Ken and Rebecca agreed that they understood the settlement as it had been put on the record, that they entered into the settlement voluntarily, that they knew it was final and binding, and that they believed it to be fair and equitable. Ken agreed that the court's recitation of the terms was a fair and accurate description of what [he] agreed to. The court concluded by finding that both parties had made knowing, reasonable and voluntary decisions and that the property division was fair and equitable. The court asked that Ken's attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and attach as an appendix the final version of the property spreadsheet that you submitted today which we were working from, as well as the supplemental or backup spreadsheet that indicated all the items of property and the distribution thereof, understanding that the parties have agreed to disagree with respect to specific values. . . .