Hoogendam and Hoogendam

A Stipulated General Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by the trial court is only binding when it (1) accurately reflects the agreed-upon terms of the parties; (2) is signed by both parties; and (3) incorporates documents and terms that are agreed upon by the parties on the record.

Wife appealed a stipulated general judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the judgment did not reflect the agreed-upon dissolution of property or custody over their child. Husband and Wife had agreed in principal to terms of marriage dissolution, and had reflected their intentions in a "battle-worn" assets and liabilities distribution sheet prepared by Husband and edited by hand by Wife. Husband prepared a new copy of the distribution for submission to the trial court, but included a substantially different child custody agreement, and substantially different proposals for asset distribution. Wife objected to the changes, but the trial court accepted Husband's proffered judgment with minor changes. Neither party signed the stipulated general judgment of dissolution. On appeal, Wife contends that substantial material differences exist between the prior agreement and the judgment entered by the trial court. Husband agrees that differences exist, but relies on the trial court's discretionary authority. On appeal, the Court agreed with wife, and concluded that the trial court erred by signing and entering the judgment of dissolution that was not signed or agreed upon by Husband or Wife. Reversed and remanded.