to supply omission in record of action really had but e court ruled that, pursuant to Md. Rule 2-535, appellant had only thirty days after the entry of a judgment to seek modification of the Order. Consequently, appellant was barred from claiming rights to appellee’s defined pension plan. Appellant next contends that the Amended Order contains significant revisions from the Original Order and, therefore, fails to accurately reflect the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. It is settled that, while a trial court is not prohibited from amending orders to effectuate the intent of the parties, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, the court is not permitted to change the terms of an agreement reached by the parties. Long v. State, 371 Md. 72, 89, 807 A.2d 1 (2002) (<HOLDING>). This Court recently applied the foregoing
holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under  2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement holding that question of fact for the jury exists on whether warranty disclaimers materially altered the agreement and whether the course of dealing supplemented the agreement holding that the parties agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement that stated that it comprises the entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and representations oral or written between the parties holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties