Colton v. Colton, 244 P.3d 1121

Former spouses reached a comprehensive settlement on child custody and property division and placed it on the record.
A $47,121.04 cash payment from Ken to Rebecca was recited as part of the settlement, though the parties’ spreadsheets showed the opposite direction for that payment.
The court largely relied on Ken’s spreadsheet during negotiations, but stated the terms on the record with item-by-item distributions.
Ken and Rebecca’s attorneys and clients testified they understood the on-record terms were final and binding and fair.
After final findings, Rebecca moved to enforce; Ken argued the record did not reflect mutual assent because the payment would cause an unequal division.
The superior court enforced the agreement; Ken appealed, challenging mutual assent and the court’s enforcement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mutual assent to the $47,121.04 payment was shown	Colton asserts assent was lacking due to perceived unequal division	Colton contends assent existed; terms were recited and accepted on record	Mutual assent supported; enforceable
Whether enforcement was improper because Ken allegedly did not fully understand the effect	Colton did not understand the impact of the payment on equality of division	Colton understood the payment; disagreement was about values, not assent	Enforcement not improper; full understanding not shown
Whether the court abused discretion by enforcing without an evidentiary hearing on a disputed term	Enforceability should await trial if material facts disputed	Record shows clear agreement; no need for further hearing	No abuse of discretion; enforceable as a matter of law

Mullins v. Oates, 179 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2008) (strong public policy favoring settlement; enforceability despite disputes over values)
Notkin v. Notkin, 921 P.2d 1109 (Alaska 1996) (mutual assent essential; review for clear error)
Murphy v. Murphy, 812 P.2d 960 (Alaska 1991) (contractual requirements; intent to be bound; exceptions to enforceability)