With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an adequate consideration.” 377 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Ky.1964). Appellees have failed to persuade this Court that contracts disposing of property, which are executed in contemplation of dissolution of marriage, constitute an exception to this general rule. The enactment of KRS 403.180 in 1972 does not alter this conclusion. In fact, it fortifies our decision. KRS 403.180 discusses whether a settlement agreement is enforceable as a judgment. However, KRS 403.180 does not automatically void settlement agreements which are improperly referenced or are not incorporated into the final decree of dissolution; nor does such a failure to comply with KRS 403.180 render a prior or contemporaneous property settlement agreement unenforceable. Cf. Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d 121, 122 (Pa. Super Ct.2008) (<HOLDING>). Although the Annechino court had the benefit

A: holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree
B: holding that the trial court had authority to enforce a marital property settlement agreement that had not been incorporated into the parties final divorce decree
C: holding that the jurisdiction of the divorce court with regard to support and maintenance is statutorily determined unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree
D: holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce
B.