In addition, the written copy of the transaction agreement was never signed by Young or Abrams` lawyers; it is therefore not applicable. Ala.Code 1975, 34-3-21. It should be noted that this status remains silent on the binding effect of signing a party in a written transaction contract concluded at the procedural level; but even though she spoke of such an incident, we find that neither Young nor Abrams ever signed the agreement. The transaction agreement in question cannot therefore be applied according to the power of attorney of art. Nor can we contribute with Bondy that the court`s judgment of April 14, 2004, which described the terms of the alleged transaction agreement, constitutes sufficient receipt of the agreement “on the Tribunal`s protocol” to prove the existence of an effective agreement. ?”It is axiomatic that the parties must first enter into a valid and binding transaction agreement before implementing it.” ? Contractor Success Group, 681 So.2d to 216. ? If there was no binding transaction agreement before the court issued its judgment, the judgment itself cannot be used to justify this agreement.2 Cf. Phillips, 559 So.2d to 567, 568 (The annulment of the execution of an alleged settlement agreement by a court in accordance with 34-3-21, although the Tribunal`s judgment establishes the terms of the alleged agreement); ?See also Daughtry v. Floyd, 702 So.2d 149, 150 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (identical). On October 2, 1994, following an oral hearing with testimony and numerous exhibits, the Tribunal issued an order declaring the transaction contract valid and enforceable and ordered the parties to execute and comply with the agreement. CsG was dismissed after the judgment and CSG, Abrams and Young appealed. ?Our Supreme Court has dealt with Phillips v. Ritter, 559 So.2d 564.
? In Phillips, a court invoked a case on its trial record and, after being informed by counsel for one of the parties that the parties had resolved the case, entered a notation on the docket which said: “[T] rying to settle. ? H.W. (the knight`s lawyer) to receive the order. ? Standard in 10 days. Phillips, 559 So.2d to 567. ? Subsequently, on request for the implementation of the alleged transaction agreement, the Tribunal found, among other things, that the “docket” rating constituted “an inscription of [the settlement agreement]” which was made in this case in the minutes of the Tribunal.?”Id. In addition, the Tribunal found that the correspondence sent by the Movant to the non-Movant, which specified the terms of the transaction agreement, constituted a reduction in the correspondence agreement. ?The court thus found that the so-called transaction contract had to be applied. ?In its decision authorizing the application for the application of the transaction agreement, the Tribunal listed the specific terms of the agreement. ?Id.