Walker v. Walker
144 So. 3d 359
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Divorcing spouses announced an oral settlement April 26, 2012, in the wife’s presence and with counsel; terms covered custody, support, alimony, and substantial property distribution, including Sand Mountain properties intended for the daughter.
- Dispute centers on Sand Mountain properties: timing and method of conveyance, and whether the daughter should receive them.
- Husband sought to enforce the settlement through a final judgment incorporating the agreed terms; wife contested enforceability and timing.
- Trial court granted enforcement, finding a binding agreement on the record; wife appealed and filed postjudgment motions.
- This Court reverses and remands, holding no enforceable agreement existed on key terms and thus the judgment cannot stand as to the Sand Mountain properties.
- Motions for attorney fees denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an enforceable agreement on Sand Mountain conveyance? | Walker—no meeting of the minds on essential terms. | Walker—terms were agreed; language would be drafted to implement. | No enforceable agreement on Sand Mountain conveyance. |
| If not, should the remaining terms be severed or remanded for full trial? | Because essential term undefined, entire judgment should be reversed. | Partial enforcement could proceed; severability allowed. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
| Did the parties intend to deed Sand Mountain properties to the daughter upon refinancing or at some future time? | Intended for daughter upon refinancing; timing undefined. | Intended for daughter eventually, with timing to be determined later. | Ambiguity rendered agreement unenforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Egres v. Egres, 85 So.3d 1026 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (settlement agreements incorporated into decrees treated as contracts; contract formation analysis)
- Ex parte Grant, 711 So.2d 464 (Ala. 1997) (contract formation principles in civil disputes)
- Strength v. Alabama Dep’t of Fin., Div. of Risk Mgmt., 622 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 1993) (contract formation and indefiniteness standards)
- Air Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc. v. Small, 259 Ala. 171 (Ala. 1953) (statements of intent and meeting of minds essential to contract)
- Grayson v. Hanson, 843 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2002) (settlement agreements require meeting of minds on final terms)
- Coley v. Lang, 339 So.2d 70 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976) (agreement to enter into a contract upon terms to be settled later is not enforceable)
- White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LEG, 998 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 2008) (indefiniteness defeats contract validity)
- Denson v. Kirkpatrick Drilling Co., 225 Ala. 473 (Ala. 1932) (vital terms must be present for contract formation)
- Onyx Oils & Resins v. Moss, 367 Pa. 416, 80 A.2d 815 (Pa. 1951) (policies on form of contract; meeting of minds required)