Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Property Settlement – Reconciliation – Continued Effect

Porter v. Porter (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-1287, 8 pp.) (John C. Martin, Ch.J.) Appealed from Brunswick County District Court. (Napoleon B. Barefoot, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full-text opinion.

Holding: Seventeen years before the parties’ divorce, they separated, entered into a separation agreement/property settlement, and then reconciled. According to its express terms, the property settlement remains in effect and bars the defendant-wife’s equitable distribution claim.

We vacate the equitable distribution order and remand for enforcement of the property settlement.

Under G.S. § 50-20(d), before, during or after marriage, the parties may by written agreement provide for distribution of the marital property or divisible property, or both, in a manner deemed by the parties to be equitable, and the agreement shall be binding on the parties.

When they separated in 1988, the parties entered into a separation agreement/property settlement. In it, they agreed that each would relinquish “any and all claims” to “any and all real or personal property owned by [the other party] or that [said party] may hereafter own.”

The parties specifically contemplated and agreed that, were they to reconcile and resume the marital relationship after entering into the agreement in 1988, the provisions of the agreement regarding “settlement of property rights shall  …  continue in full force and effect without abatement of any term or provision thereof.” Thus, the agreement makes the parties’ intent clear that the provisions regarding ownership of property acquired after husband and wife entered into the 1988 agreement were to remain unaffected by any later reconciliation and resumption of the marital relationship. The trial court incorporated the 1988 agreement into the parties’ divorce judgment.

The trial court erred by ordering equitable distribution of the property in contravention of the express terms of the now-court-ordered agreement. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order for equitable distribution and remand with instructions to distribute the property in accordance with the terms of the 1988 agreement, which provided that “any property not specifically provided for under this Agreement shall be deemed to be separate property to be solely owned by the party holding title to the same.”

Vacated and remanded.