Opinion ID: 2585299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Glasens' Reconciliation

Text: It is well recognized that a legal separation decree ordinarily terminates if the parties become reconciled and resume cohabitation. [12] The superior court found that Danny and Gail reconciled about three months after the separation decree was entered. Danny asserts that because Gail committed adultery during their separation and sporadically lived in California, the superior court erred in concluding that they reconciled. Gail counters that they reconciled within a few months of their separation, and that nothing changed in the pattern of their marriage. Although we have never defined reconciliation expressly, one authority has stated that reconciliation means a voluntary resumption of marital cohabitation in the fullest sense. This ordinarily requires living together as husband and wife, engaging in sexual relations, and where possible, establishing a joint domicile. .... But a reconciliation may be found to exist without the resumption of a matrimonial domicile if the parties live together as constantly as the circumstances permit. [13] In addition, when spouses reconcile and indicate through their conduct the intention of rescinding the separation agreement in whole or in part, effect should be given to their action. [14] In this case the superior court found sufficient facts to support its conclusion that Danny and Gail had reconciled: After the separation agreement was ordered, the couple cohabitated [sic] and had sexual relations. They filed joint tax returns for the years between the legal separation and the divorce. In all ways Danny and Gail operated as a marital unit. Danny did not pay child support as the parties contemplated in the Separation Agreement, because the Glasens functioned as a family unit. The record supports the superior court's findings: Danny and Gail maintained both a commuter relationship and a cohabitation relationship, and they continued to function as an economic unit. They filed joint tax returns, maintained joint credit cards, and also kept a joint bank account. As the trial court found, the Glasens' reconciliation, cohabitation, and economic commingling indicated an intent to behave as a marital unit and rescind their separation agreement. Based on these facts, we conclude that the superior court did not err in finding that the Glasens reconciled. Thus, the Glasens' reconciliation after their separation provides a separate basis for affirming the superior court's decision not to incorporate the separation decree into the divorce decree.