The mother appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in the application of the transaction contract “because she did not admit the terms of the transaction and was unable to conclude it at the time in question because of her medical condition,” arguing that the Tribunal had “received no evidence from the parties” at the hearing of the father`s application. Id. at 332. However, the mother`s allegations of evidence at the hearing were challenged by the father and contradicted the court`s order to the motion. The Georgia Court of Appeal therefore upheld, in reference to well-established jurisprudence, that “the Court of Appeal may determine whether the impugned judgment was defective, it is the duty of the applicant to include these points in the minutes, allowing the Court of Appeal to conduct an objective verification of the evidence and procedure.” Atwood v. Southeast Bedding Co., 236 Ga. App. 116 (1) (511 S.E.2d 232) (1999). Id.
at 332-333. In addition, “an appels court must consider the judgment below to be correct and confirm that if the evidence necessary to adjudicate the appeal is removed from the minutes, an appel appeals court must consider that the judgment below was correct and confirm.” Enchanted Valley RV Park Resort v. Weese, 241 Ga. 415, 417 (1) (c) (526 SE2d 124) (1999). As there is no transcript or other evidence in the minutes on appeal, the Georgian Court of Appeal was required to assume that the court was correct. The court granted the motion; by preparing a two-page execution order purporting to consolidate the couple`s negotiated terms. Subsequently, she entered into a final decree on divorce, which took the conditions of the bilateral decision. I discovered how hard divorce agreements are to get to be broken, my ex-husband thought. I also learned what to do to enforce the agreement and make sure there is some long-term meaning. The husband appealed to the court. He made two arguments that the Supreme Court found necessary: first, he argued that there was no transaction agreement to be applied. Second, he argued that the Tribunal`s enforcement decision was so incomplete that it was no longer sufficient to support the parties` divorce.