Lane v. Lane (2018) & Divorcing after Reconciliation

Picture the following scenario: a married couple experiences relationship problems, agrees to separate, and develops a separation agreement. During the development phase of the agreement, both spouses procure counsel, and the agreement ultimately touches on all aspects of the divorce. The agreement may therefore be used to predetermine most of the outcomes of the upcoming divorce. However, prior to formally dissolving the marriage, the couple reconciles and resumes their relationship. The spouses resume living together, share property together, and engage in all the normal activities of a married couple. Then, following this reconciliation, the spouses experience additional problems, and eventually they go obtain a formal dissolution. In this situation, how should a Maryland court view the separation agreement in the event that at least one spouse wishes to enforce the agreement? What effect, if any, will the reconciliation have on the enforceability of the terms of the separation agreement?

In the case of Lane v. Lane (2018), these issues arose after a couple separated, created an agreement, and then reconciled and remained together for a substantial period of time after the reconciliation. Let’s examine this case in some detail.

‍

Factual Outline of Lane v. Lane (2018)

The couple in this case had an “unconventional relationship,” as they themselves openly described it. The couple married in1988, but then separated several years later. By 1995, the spouses developed a thorough separation agreement in which they resolved many of the core issues of the dissolution. Significantly, the spouses resolved the property division issues of their relationship in the separation agreement. After developing this agreement, the couple reconciled, and then resumed basically all the core activities of their marriage which they had engaged in previously. Importantly, in 1998, they conceived their second child.

In 2015, the wife finally filed for divorce and intended to follow through with this divorce petition. The wife argued that, despite the reconciliation and subsequent behavior, the terms of the agreement should be enforced; the husband argued the opposite, and contended that the behavior of the couple following the reconciliation effectively nullified the separation agreement.

‍

Ruling & Discussion

The court ruled that the couple’s behavior following the reconciliation had in fact “abrogated” the terms of the separation agreement. This means that the agreement had been essentially nullified because of their post-reconciliation behavior. The court also pointed out that the effect of reconciliation is not always the same; in some cases, reconciliation will not abrogate a separation agreement developed prior to the reconciliation. The nature of the effect is determined by both the specifics of the reconciliation and the specifics of the agreement. If, for instance, a couple reconciles, but then behaves in ways which are consistent with the terms of the agreement, then the agreement may stand even if the couple divorces in the future. Or, conversely, if a couple behaves in ways which conflict with the terms of the agreement, then the agreement may be abrogated. Hence, an individualized analysis is required by the court to determine the precise effect of a reconciliation on a separation agreement. There may also be instances in which a couple’s behavior isn’t relevant to the terms of a separation agreement at all, and so that will be considered when the court makes its determination.

In this case, the couple shared assets, made important purchases together, had a child together, and generally conducted themselves in a manner which clearly went against the terms of the agreement.

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If readers would like additional information on the effects of reconciliation on a separation agreement, or another divorce related topic, connect with one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.

‍