## Facts

- Charles Curry (husband) and Debora Curry (wife) married in 1975, divorced in 1977, and later remarried by common law in 1977.
- The husband filed for divorce in 1981 and again in 1984.
- In 1984, while a divorce action was pending, the parties executed a written reconciliation agreement that:
  - provided for certain payments by the husband to the wife;
  - required dismissal of the then-pending divorce action without prejudice; and
  - barred the wife from future claims for alimony or equitable division of property.
- In 1989, the husband filed a new divorce complaint and sought an order enforcing the 1984 reconciliation agreement.
- Before the wife filed defensive pleadings or a counterclaim, the trial court held a hearing focused on the agreement’s enforceability and then entered a final judgment enforcing it.
- The wife obtained discretionary appellate review in the Supreme Court of Georgia.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by entering a final judgment enforcing the reconciliation agreement after an early hearing held before the wife filed responsive pleadings and before expiration of the usual 30-day period.
2. Whether the enforceability of a reconciliation agreement presents issues that must be decided by a jury rather than by the trial judge.
3. Whether the reconciliation agreement was unenforceable due to fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation or nondisclosure, unconscionability, or changed circumstances making enforcement unfair or unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment enforcing the reconciliation agreement.
- The court held the wife, through counsel, consented to the timing and limited purpose of the hearing and requested a ruling on enforceability; having fully litigated that dispositive issue, she could not complain about entry of a final judgment.
- The court held that enforceability of a reconciliation agreement is determined by the trial judge, applying the same framework used for antenuptial agreements.
- The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the agreement was enforceable under that framework, including its finding that the agreement was not unconscionable and that enforcement was not rendered unfair or unreasonable by the facts shown.

## Legal Principles

- A party may consent to an early hearing before expiration of the usual 30-day period; participation without objection and requesting a ruling supports a finding of consent, permitting final judgment when the dispositive issue is resolved.
- Reconciliation agreements are evaluated under the same enforceability criteria as antenuptial agreements.
- The trial judge (not a jury) determines whether to enforce such agreements by considering:
  - whether the agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts;
  - whether the agreement is unconscionable; and
  - whether changed circumstances since execution make enforcement unfair or unreasonable.
- A reconciliation agreement waiving future alimony and equitable-division claims is not invalid per se; enforceability depends on application of these factors to the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld enforcement of a reconciliation agreement that waived future alimony and property-division claims, ruling that the trial judge decides enforceability under the Scherer factors and that the wife’s consent to an early, dispositive hearing supported entry of a final judgment enforcing the agreement.


Curry v. Curry, 260 Ga. 302, 392 S.E.2d 879 (1990)