Hart v. Hart, 297 Ga. 709

Wife filed for divorce; parties negotiated extensively (including mediation) but proceeded to trial after failing to settle earlier.
On the morning of trial, after jury selection, parties announced an on-the-record settlement intended to resolve all issues; counsel stated the announced terms covered “everything.”
Announced terms explicitly addressed military retirement, survivor benefits, TSP payment, alimony, division of personal property and debts, and award of the marital home; they did not expressly mention husband’s unvested civil service retirement.
Counsel jointly drafted a written settlement that included language stating the agreement was a final settlement and that the parties waived claims to retirement accounts not expressly set out; wife refused to sign the draft and retained new counsel.
Trial court granted husband’s motion to enforce the settlement and incorporated the draft (including waiver language regarding unspecified retirement accounts) into the final divorce decree; wife appealed only the inclusion of the waiver as adding an unagreed substantive term.

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether the final decree improperly added a substantive waiver of wife’s claim to husband’s civil service retirement	The decree included waiver language not agreed to at the on-the-record settlement; wife never consented to waive any interest in the civil service retirement	The parties announced a full settlement of all issues and jointly drafted a written agreement containing a waiver of claims to retirement accounts not expressly listed; that waiver was part of the parties’ mutual assent	Court affirmed: objective evidence (announced settlement, parties’ conduct, joint drafts) shows mutual assent to a final settlement that waived claims to retirement accounts not expressly set out, so inclusion of waiver was proper

DeGarmo v. DeGarmo, 269 Ga. 480 (recognizes trial court cannot add substantive terms not agreed to by parties)
Reichard v. Reichard, 262 Ga. 561 (same principle: decree cannot include unagreed substantive provisions)
Buckner v. Buckner, 294 Ga. 705 (settlement agreements in divorce construed like other contracts)
Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (objective theory of intent; courts may consider surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence)
Sponsler v. Sponsler, 287 Ga. 725 (announced settlement intended as final binds parties when no objection made)
Stookey v. Stookey, 274 Ga. 472 (trial-court factual findings on enforcement of settlement accorded deference)
Little v. Little, 236 Ga. 102 (trial court authorized to approve and incorporate oral settlement in final decree)