somehow taint, ed its subsequent re-approval. We do not view this argument to be established by Wife. The crucial and controlling fact is that the trial court had before it evidence of the signed, handwritten agreement at the time the final dissolution decree was entered. Next, Wife complains that the typewritten agreement contained many provisions which were not present in the signed notes. We addressed this issue in our earlier opinion when we stated, "insofar as the terms of the handwritten notes signed by the parties conform to the terms of the typewritten agreement filed with the trial court, the agreement is enforceable." Reno, supra, 734 N.E.2d at 1099. In our opinion, we held that the terms of the agreement complained of by Wife were consistent with the signed notes. See id. (<HOLDING>). Still, Wife claims that the existence of
holding a guarantor and principal debtor were not joint and several obligors they were severally parties to different contracts with the plaintiffs holding that provisions concerning joint custody and healthcare of the parties child were consistent with the signed notes holding that the mclendon standard applied where an agreement between the parties granted the parties joint legal custody of the child with physical custody to the mother and the agreement had been adopted by the trial court holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined holding that the domicile of the child follows that of the parent with lawful custody