If your case rests only on the marriage being irretrievably broken, reconciling ends it.
The Rule
Lindsay v. Lindsay, 241 Ga. 166 (1978), is direct. A wife filed for divorce in January 1976 alleging the marriage was irretrievably broken and obtained a temporary order. The parties then moved back in together and lived as husband and wife. When that failed, she tried to revive the same case by amendment.
The Georgia Supreme Court held she could not. “[T]he reconciliation and cohabitation of the parties terminated the wife’s action for divorce based on the allegation that the marriage was irretrievably broken.”
Why No-Fault Is Different
The Court explained why fault cases can work differently. Where a divorce is sought for cruel treatment, spouses sometimes reconcile on the condition that the conduct stop, and a breach of that condition revives the action.
That structure does not fit here. “This is a ‘no fault’ ground, and there can be no reconciliation on condition applicable to it, the breach of which condition would revive the action for divorce.”
Because her old case was over, the wife’s new allegation was “a new claim” that had to be filed where her husband now lived.
Raise It Before Judgment
Timing matters. In McCoy v. McCoy, 281 Ga. 604 (2007), a husband first raised an alleged reconciliation in a motion for new trial after the decree.
The Court held that “while cohabitation and reconciliation may be asserted as defenses to a pending divorce action, they do not divest a court of its jurisdiction to enter a divorce decree.” Having known the facts all along, he could not raise them afterward.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!