On January 17, 2013, after the husband stated that the house was his and that he was trying to obtain ownership of the house, the woman`s lawyer wrote to the court on January 17, 2013, that she intended to file an application to cancel the transaction because there were errors in the comparison document, namely that the agreement had wrongly attributed the marital home to the husband. On January 22, 2013, Wife submitted her application entitled “Motion to Set Aside Memorandum of Settlement Not Representative of the Understanding of the Parties or in the Alternative Motion to Withdraw from and Set Aside Agreement.” However, within minutes of Wife`s application, the Tribunal issued an order entitled “Judgement of Law and Decree by Mutual Agreement,” attached to the disputed Settlement Memorandum. The order reflects the fact that it was prepared by the husband`s counsel and the space provided for the woman`s counsel to indicate consent to the appointment is not signed. There is no doubt that the proposed decision was filed ex parte. The woman then requested that the judgment be quashed on the grounds that the conciliation memorandum attached to the decision had been signed by mutual error and did not constitute a meeting of spirits. In the letter supporting the application, Wife also asserted that the terms of the final decree were neither fair nor fair, as it required it to unearth valuable assets, including the activities of the couple and their premarital home, which left him with a heavy income tax debt and not a fair allocation of marital property. After a hearing of evidence, the court dismissed the application. Divorce transaction agreements must be interpreted in the same way as all other contractual agreements. Jones v. Jones, 280 Ga. 712, 714 (1), 632 S.E.2d 121 (2006). Even a party at trial has a duty to read a contract before signing, and by signing, the party is bound by its terms, “unless at the time of signing, there was an emergency situation that would not excuse the reading or the consideration misled it by a turn or device that prevented it from reading it. or that there was a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the parties on which it relied for the non-reading of the contract.” Cochran v.
Murrah, 235 Ga. 304, 305, 219 S.E.2d 421 (1975). In this case, no evidence was presented preventing the woman from being bound to the terms of the document she and her lawyer signed. The wife and her lawyer stated that they were mistaken that the document they had signed stipulated that the house would go to the husband and not to the wife, and they also stated that the parties did not agree to forgive the house to the husband, but did agree that the wife would have the house. Therefore, it argues a reciprocal error. The credibility of the witnesses, however, is for the court meeting that Trier does, and we find no error in the court`s conclusion that the evidence does not show reciprocal errors. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 243, ga. 275, 253 S.E.2d 761 (1979). In addition, the error could have been detected by proper care. See Primary Investments, LLC v.
Wee Tender Care III, Inc., Ga.App 323. 196, 201 (2), 746 S.E.2d 823 (2013) (no error in the award of summary judgment against the party who wanted to terminate and reform a contract if that party had sufficient opportunity to read the draft agreement signed and to discover a change in one of the terms of an earlier project, but not); Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC/.