Buckner v. Buckner, 294 Ga. 705

On Dec. 20, 2012, parties reached a settlement at final hearing using a memorandum of settlement drafted from Husband's offer with handwritten edits; the document was filed but not read into the record.
The memorandum stated Husband would get the marital abode and the shop and the business; dispute remained over the marital home’s award.
Wife later claimed she demanded to keep the premarital home and that the term awarding it to Husband was erroneous; she asserted mutual mistake.
Husband circulated draft consent final judgments with terms from the settlement memorandum plus additional terms; the drafts continued to be exchanged after signing.
Wife filed a motion to set aside the settlement on Jan. 22, 2013, after learning of alleged errors; the court later entered aConsent Final Judgment ex parte.
The trial court’s later ruling denied Wife’s request to rescind/reform, leading to post-trial discretionary review by the Georgia Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the settlement memorandum enforceable as a contract?	Buckner contends the agreement reflected mutual assent.	Buckner maintains terms were bound by the signed memorandum.	The court held the settlement memorandum was enforceable.
Was the entry of the Consent Final Judgment proper without Wife’s consent?	Buckner asserts Wife did not consent to the order.	Buckner argues drafts and consent implied consent.	Entry was improper ex parte; judgment vacated.
Should the trial court have set aside the final decree under equitable power?	Buckner sought relief under OCGA 15-1-3(6) for set-aside/additional equitable grounds.	Husband argues no mutual mistake and no grounds to set aside.	The court should have exercised discretion to set aside the judgment; final judgment vacated.
Did the trial court abuse by not independently reviewing the settlement before final decree?	Court failed to assess whether contents stayed within legal bounds.	Trial court did review but erred in not setting aside.	Court erred by not independently reviewing and by accepting a non-consented order.

Moss v. Moss, 265 Ga. 802 (Ga. 1995) (incomplete settlement due to material term left unresolved; enforceability questioned)
DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480 (Ga. 1998) (written agreement incomplete; continued revisions to terms)
Cochran v. Murrah, 235 Ga. 304 (Ga. 1975) (read-contract rule; duty to read and consequences of non-reading)
Page v. Page, 281 Ga. 155 (Ga. 2006) (trial court must ensure terms are within law before final decree)
Pope v. Pope, 277 Ga. 333 (Ga. 2003) (trial court should exercise discretion to set aside judgments within term)