Newman v. Newman

• Decision Date: 01 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. S12F1549.,S12F1549.
• Citation: 732 S.E.2d 77,291 Ga. 635
• Parties: NEWMAN v. NEWMAN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

291 Ga. 635
732 S.E.2d 77

NEWMAN
v.
NEWMAN.

No. S12F1549.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 1, 2012.

[732 S.E.2d 78]

Theodore Scott Eittreim, Mayoue, Gray & Eittreim, Atlanta, for appellant.

Dennis Gidon Collard, Kessler, Schwarz & Solomiany, Atlanta, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Presiding Justice.

[291 Ga. 635]Appellant James Newman (husband) and appellee Judy Newman (wife) were married in May 2007. Just before their wedding, they executed a 20–page type-written prenuptial agreement to which they added a handwritten provision acknowledging “that there are certain ambiguities contained [within] the body of this document which each party agrees to clarify and re-write within 30 days of the date of execution hereof.” Wife filed for divorce in 2011. After a hearing, the trial court granted wife's motion to enforce the prenuptial agreement and entered a judgment of divorce incorporating its terms. We granted husband's application for discretionary appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34(4), and for the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Husband contends the trial court erred by enforcing the prenuptial agreement because the addition of the handwritten language left [291 Ga. 636]the parties with an unenforceable “agreement to agree.” Kreimer v. Kreimer, 274 Ga. 359, 552 S.E.2d 826 (2001) (contract that fails to establish essential term and leaves settling of term to be agreed upon later is unenforceable); Board of Drainage Comm'rs. v. Karr & Moore, 157 Ga. 284, 299, 121 S.E. 298 (1924) (contract that leaves terms and conditions to future negotiations is of no effect). In essence, husband argues that any agreement the parties may have had was voided by the addition of the language indicating their belief that the agreement contained ambiguities and their intent to clarify such ambiguities.

While we agree with husband that a contract to enter into a contract in the future is of no legal effect, we do not agree that the agreement in this case constitutes such a contract. First, unlike the cases husband relies upon, nothing in the language of the agreement itself demonstrates it was incomplete or tentative at the time it was executed. Compare Board of Drainage Comm'rs at 299, 121 S.E. 298 (finding unenforceable contract declaring it was a tentative contract and final contract would be executed after changes made); Hartrampf v. Citizens & Southern Realty Investors, 157 Ga.App. 879, 881, 278 S.E.2d 750 (1981) (agreement within a contract...