In a non-precedential opinion of August 31, 2015, Semulka/. Semulka, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, ruled that the parties` reconciliation did not overturn a previously executed divorce treaty. As the agreement was still applicable, the husband was required to respect the agreement, including a payment of $US 40,000 to the wife. The court also contradicted the husband`s assertion that the wife had waived her rights under the agreement. The agreement contained a language that neither party was required to constantly require of the benefit in order to reserve the right to apply the agreement at a later date. In support of its decision, the Court held that “the determination of marital property rights has long been authorized and even encouraged by transaction agreements.” Divorce contracts are governed by treaty law. Referring to previous jurisprudence, the Tribunal refused to join other states and rejected the husband`s argument that reconciliation terminated the agreement. There are two types of marriage contracts that can be signed after a couple is already married. The first is a “post-marital arrangement” and the second is a “marital transaction contract.” Both types of contracts can be used to settle the affairs of persons in times of marital conflict. The distinguishing factor between the two types of agreements is the intention of the parties as to the future of their marriage at the time of execution.

A “post-marriage agreement” is an agreement for couples who want to marry at least for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, a “marital transaction contract” is an agreement for people considering the end of their marriage, which means an imminent divorce. This raises the question: Is the above distinction relevant? The answer is definitely “yes” – the distinction counts – because the two types of agreements are treated very differently in the event of “reconciliation” after a divorce. The Supreme Court objected and found that the Semulkas agreement did not require them to live separately and separately, but only allows them to do so. Accordingly, the Court could not reasonably conclude that a long-term separation was intended to nullify the agreement. Reconciliation clauses are great. You may not be able to think about this now (and you may be right, who knows?), but you and your husband can reconcile. This happens all the time, even in cases where I think the parties are certainly not going to reconcile. Who do I judge? No one knows what happens in a marriage, other than the two people inside, and sometimes the bonds that bind them can be stronger than they recognized.