Fletcher v. Fletcher
1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 936, 123 N.C. App. 744, 474 S.E.2d 802 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A resumption of marital relations sufficient to void a separation agreement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.2 is determined by the totality of the circumstances and requires substantial objective indicia of reconciliation, not merely isolated incidents of sexual intercourse or a brief period of cohabitation.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant, a married couple, separated on August 10, 1993, at which point Plaintiff moved into her own mobile home.
- On October 13, 1993, the parties executed a formal Separation Agreement to settle issues of property division and child custody.
- On December 5, 1993, Plaintiff returned to the former marital home for a temporary stay, bringing only minimal belongings such as a work outfit and toiletries.
- For six days, from December 6 to December 11, 1993, the parties spent evenings together with their sons and engaged in sexual intercourse three to four times.
- Throughout this period, Plaintiff maintained her separate residence in the mobile home, returning once to retrieve more work clothes.
- On December 11, 1993, Defendant asked Plaintiff to leave the marital home, stating that he wished to be with his girlfriend.
- Following Defendant's request, Plaintiff permanently returned to her mobile home.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in a state trial court.
- Plaintiff sought to rescind the parties' separation agreement and requested an equitable distribution of marital property, alleging defendant's breach and a legal reconciliation.
- The trial court found in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that the parties had reconciled as a matter of law and that the Defendant had materially breached the agreement.
- The trial court entered an order declaring the separation agreement null and void.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a six-day period where separated spouses spend evenings together, share meals, and engage in sexual intercourse constitute a 'resumption of marital relations' under the totality of the circumstances test sufficient to void their separation agreement as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - John, J.
No. The brief, six-day period of cohabitation and sexual intercourse does not constitute a 'resumption of marital relations' under the totality of the circumstances. The court reasoned that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.2 requires courts to evaluate all circumstances and explicitly states that 'isolated incidents of sexual intercourse' are insufficient to establish reconciliation. Unlike prior cases where reconciliation was found (e.g., Adamee, Schultz), the facts here lack 'substantial objective indicia' of a renewed marital relationship. The short duration, the plaintiff's maintenance of a separate residence, the absence of any public representation of reconciliation, and the defendant's statement that he wanted to be with his girlfriend all weigh against a finding of reconciliation. The court also held that the defendant's alleged contract violations were not material breaches that went to the heart of the agreement, and therefore did not justify rescission.
Concurring - Walker, J.
Agrees with the majority's conclusion that no reconciliation or material breach occurred and the separation agreement remains valid. This opinion adds that if the defendant continues to fail to meet his obligations under the agreement, the plaintiff's proper remedy is to seek an order of specific performance to enforce the contract's terms, not to rescind the entire agreement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'totality of the circumstances' test for reconciliation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.2, reinforcing the legislative overruling of the prior Murphy standard where isolated sexual acts alone could void a separation agreement. The court establishes a high bar for finding reconciliation, requiring more than a brief, failed attempt at getting back together. This ruling provides greater stability and certainty for separation agreements, allowing parties to explore reconciliation without the immediate risk that a failed attempt will automatically nullify their negotiated contract.
