DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, S98A0541.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98A0541.,S98A0541. |
| Citation | 269 Ga. 480,499 S.E.2d 317 |
| Parties | DeGARMO v. DeGARMO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David S. Lipscomb, Henderson & Lipscomb, P.A., Duluth, for Brenda K. DeGarmo.
Jan McKinney, McKinney & Salo, Norcross, John A. Roberts, The Roberts Law Firm, Atlanta, Elizabeth Mara Jaffe, McKinney & Salo, P.A., Norcross, for Shelton W. DeGarmo.
This appeal is from an order enforcing a settlement agreement in a divorce action. After Mr. DeGarmo filed a complaint for divorce, the defendant, Ms. DeGarmo, sought to join as parties Super 1, Inc., the corporation which was formed to conduct a business the DeGarmos had begun together, and Billy Ross, the only stockholder in Super 1, Inc. other than Mr. DeGarmo. The trial court denied that motion. After a mediation session, the parties signed a draft settlement agreement, but Ms. DeGarmo renounced it shortly thereafter. Mr. DeGarmo filed a motion to enforce the agreement, which the trial court denied. This court denied his application for interlocutory appeal. Ms. DeGarmo subsequently filed a motion to set aside what she termed a fraudulent issuance of stock in Super 1, Inc., and renewed her motion to add parties. Without ruling on her motions, the trial court reconsidered Mr. DeGarmo's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and granted it, adopting for its final order the last in a series of revisions of the agreement. This court granted Ms. DeGarmo's application for discretionary review, expressing interest in the correctness of the trial court's grant of Mr. DeGarmo's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and in the correctness of the trial court's denial of Ms. DeGarmo's motion to add third-party defendants.
1. Moss v. Moss, 265 Ga. 802, 803, 463 S.E.2d 9 (1995). The final version of the settlement agreement adopted by the trial court in this case over the objections of Ms. DeGarmo includes several provisions either not included in the handwritten original or different than those initially agreed upon. For example, the handwritten version awarded Ms. DeGarmo the furnishings and contents of the marital residence, without exception, while the version adopted by the trial court provided for exceptions to that grant, specifically awarding Mr. DeGarmo certain collectibles, "wherever located." A provision in the handwritten agreement required Mr. DeGarmo to relinquish to Ms. DeGarmo and to protect the confidentiality of certain of her medical records; the final version expanded that requirement to both parties. The final version of the agreement included a provision for waiver of all inheritance rights which was entirely absent from the original agreement. Those changes and additions to the parties' agreement renders the trial court's adoption of the subsequently drafted final version error. Id.
Ms. DeGarmo also argued that the agreement was unenforceable because it specified certain issues for resolution in the future. From the fact that the agreement went through multiple revisions after the handwritten agreement was signed, it is plain that some issues were, indeed, left for future resolution and the resolutions were added to the agreement. Mr. DeGarmo's reliance on a provision in the handwritten agreement that the mediator would resolve disputes concerning the final language to be used is misplaced: the changes mentioned above related to substantive matters, not the wording of the agreement. The record demonstrates that the original agreement was inadequate because it left matters for later resolution (id.) and the revision adopted by the trial court was unenforceable because, as noted above, it contained matter not included in the original.
2. When one party to a divorce proceeding alleges there has been a fraudulent conveyance of property to defeat that party's rights, joinder of additional parties involved in the allegedly fraudulent conveyance is proper. Roberts v. Roberts, 226 Ga. 203(9), 173 S.E.2d 675 (1970). Here, Ms. DeGarmo alleges that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Hart
...substantive term to the parties' settlement when it included the challenged waiver language in the final decree.2 See DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480, 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998) ; Reichard v. Reichard, 262 Ga. 561, 423 S.E.2d 241 (1992). This Court granted wife's application pursuant to Rule 34(......
-
Edelkind v. Boudreaux, S99A0520.
...404 S.E.2d 435 (1991). But, a divorce decree should accurately reflect a settlement reached by the parties. See DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480(1), 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998). And at the time these parties entered into their written agreement, there had been no final judgment fixing the parties'......
-
Armour v. Holcombe, S10F0946.
...action to facilitate a complete resolution of the issues. See Moore v. Moore, 281 Ga. 81, 635 S.E.2d 107 (2006); DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480, 481(2), 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998); Horton v. Kitchens, 259 Ga. 446(2), 383 S.E.2d 871 (1989). Such a joinder of a grantee, however, is limited to tha......
-
Steele v. Steele
...agreement, the court must ensure that the resulting divorce decree accurately reflects the terms of the settlement. DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480(1), 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998). In this case, comparing the Memorandum of Settlement to the final judgment and decree of divorce, we conclude that t......
-
Settlement Agreement Basics
...564, 423 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1992). [69] Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695, 697, 446 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994); accord DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480, 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998); Reichard v. Reichard, 262 Ga. 561, 564, 423 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1992). [70]Old Peachtree Partners, LLC v. Gwinnett County,......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...258 (1994)). 14. Id. at 864, 494 S.E.2d at 326. 15. Id. 16. 231 Ga. 889, 204 S.E.2d 610 (1974). 17. 268 Ga. at 865, 494 S.E.2d at 327. 18. 269 Ga. 480, 499 S.E.2d 317 (1998). 19. Id. at 481, 499 S.E.2d at 318. 20. Id. at 480, 499 S.E.2d at 318. 21. Id. at 481, 499 S.E.2d at 318 (citing Robe......