## Facts

- Donald C. Cameron and S. Lynea Cameron married in 1988, had one child, divorced in 1998, and did not enter a property settlement after that divorce.
- Between the 1998 divorce and the parties’ later remarriage, Donald received by gift multiple farms totaling roughly 1,400 acres.
- The parties remarried on January 4, 2002, lived together on the gifted property, and Donald filed for dissolution on October 10, 2002; Lynea moved to her mother’s home shortly thereafter.
- While the dissolution action was pending, Donald (represented by counsel) and Lynea (not represented) discussed a possible reconciliation, including counseling; Donald also sought to assure Lynea she would be provided for if reconciliation failed.
- On December 20, 2002, the parties executed a written separation agreement drafted by Donald’s attorney that purported to resolve property matters, including assets claimed as nonmarital, and included language that reconciliation and cohabitation would void the agreement.
- After signing, Lynea did not move back into the marital home; she kept her belongings at her mother’s residence. The parties spent some weekends and a vacation together with their child but did not resume living together as spouses.
- Lynea sought dissolution and enforcement of the agreement; Donald moved to set it aside, asserting (1) reconciliation abrogated it and (2) it was unconscionable.
- The trial court found no reconciliation that abrogated the agreement and found the agreement not unconscionable; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ post-agreement conduct constituted reconciliation sufficient to abrogate the separation agreement.
2. Whether the separation agreement was unconscionable at the time of execution and therefore unenforceable.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.
- The trial court’s finding of no reconciliation and no abrogation was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
- The trial court’s finding that the agreement was not unconscionable was upheld; the agreement remained enforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Whether spouses reconciled so as to abrogate a separation agreement is a question of fact; appellate review is deferential and asks whether findings are clearly erroneous (supported by substantial evidence).
- Post-agreement conduct such as counseling, shared time with a child, and intermittent contact may be insufficient to show reconciliation absent resumption of marital cohabitation and restoration of the marital relationship.
- A separation agreement may be refused enforcement if unconscionable at the time it was executed; unconscionability focuses on the circumstances and fairness of the bargain at execution.
- Trial courts’ determinations on reconciliation and unconscionability receive substantial deference on appeal, particularly where credibility assessments are central.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the spouses’ separation agreement, holding that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the parties did not reconcile in a manner that nullified the contract and that the agreement was not unconscionable when executed.


Cameron v. Cameron, 265 S.W.3d 797 (Ky. 2008)