There are two types of marital contracts that can be signed after a couple is already married. The first is a “post-nuptial agreement” and the second is a “marital settlement agreement.” Both types of contracts can be used to settle people’s affairs during times of marital strife. The distinguishing factor between the two types of agreements is the parties’ “intent” as to the future of their marriage at the time of execution. A “post-nuptial agreement” is an agreement for couples who intend, at least for the foreseeable future, to remain married. A “marital settlement agreement,” on the other hand, is an agreement for people who are contemplating an end to their marriage, meaning an imminent divorce. This raises the question: is there is any importance to the above distinction? The answer is definitely “yes”—the distinction matters—because the two types of agreements are treated very differently in the event of “reconciliation” following a divorce filing.

The above question was recently presented to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a case called Stephanos v. Stephanos. In that case, the parties had gone through a number of separations and reconciliations during their long-term marriage. Along the way, and following a rough patch in the relationship, the parties signed what they both acknowledged to be a post-nuptial agreement, meaning that, when they signed it, they intended to stay together. A number of years later, one of them filed for divorce, but, once again, the parties decided to stay together, resulting in a dismissal of the case and what is known in family law as a “reconciliation.” Unfortunately, things did not end there.