A reconciliation agreement – one spouses sign when they call off a divorce and agree to keep the marriage going – is enforceable in Georgia.
How These Agreements Arise
In Curry v. Curry, 260 Ga. 302 (1990), a husband had filed for divorce twice. In 1984 the parties signed a reconciliation agreement that dismissed the pending action without prejudice, provided for certain payments from the husband to the wife, and barred the wife from any future claim for alimony or equitable division of property. Five years later the husband filed for divorce again and asked the court to enforce the agreement.
The Judge Decides, Not a Jury
The wife argued that the trial court had resolved questions belonging to a jury. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed, saying it knew “of no reason why a reconciliation agreement should stand on a different footing from an antenuptial agreement under Scherer,” and that “Scherer specifies that the trial judge shall determine whether or not to enforce the agreement.” So the same three criteria that govern prenuptial agreements govern these.
Unfair Is Not the Same as Unconscionable
Before enforcing a reconciliation agreement, “the trial court is required to examine the agreement for unconscionability.” Gravley v. Gravley, 278 Ga. 897 (2005). That is a demanding standard, though. In Curry, the trial court found the agreement’s terms “unfair and inequitable,” because the wife would likely have received some equitable division of property had the marriage ended in 1984 instead. It enforced the agreement anyway, and the Georgia Supreme Court found no error.
What the wife received was the reconciliation itself. The trial court treated the continuation of a marriage that “would have terminated in 1984 but for such reconciliation” as a substantial benefit she had bargained for.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!