## Facts

- Gail L. Haymes (wife) and Stephen D. Haymes (husband) married in 1965, lived together continuously until 1987, and had two children.
- The wife alleged that beginning in late 1984 the husband refused to have sexual relations with her despite repeated requests.
- In September 1987, the husband moved out of the marital residence; the wife alleged he left without justification and without her consent.
- The wife also alleged the husband committed adultery with multiple women identified in the complaint.
- After the parties had lived apart for more than one year, the wife filed a divorce action in September 1988. Her complaint included causes of action for adultery, abandonment, constructive abandonment, and cruel and inhuman treatment.
- After the action began, the parties attempted a reconciliation from November 18, 1988 to January 4, 1989. They resumed living together during that period and had sexual relations at least once.
- The wife maintained that, even during the attempted reconciliation, the husband showed no affection and expressed no remorse for his alleged adultery.
- The reconciliation failed; the parties separated again, and the husband later asserted a counterclaim for divorce.
- On January 23, 1995, just before trial, the husband made an oral motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the abandonment and constructive abandonment causes of action based on the reconciliation.
- The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the post-filing reconciliation barred those claims as a matter of law. The wife appealed from the dismissal of the abandonment-based causes of action.

## Issues

1. Whether a brief, unsuccessful attempt at reconciliation after the statutory abandonment period has accrued and after a divorce action has been filed—despite temporary cohabitation and at least one act of sexual intercourse—automatically bars causes of action for abandonment and constructive abandonment as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the dismissal of the wife’s second and third causes of action (abandonment and constructive abandonment).
- The court reinstated those causes of action and remanded for trial.
- The court held that a short, failed reconciliation after commencement of a matrimonial action, even with brief cohabitation and isolated sexual relations, does not automatically preclude abandonment-based relief as a matter of law.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating the reconciliation as a categorical bar and by denying the wife an opportunity to prove facts bearing on whether the reconciliation was made in good faith and whether it was meaningfully successful.

## Legal Principles

- A post-commencement attempt at reconciliation, even if it includes brief cohabitation and isolated sexual relations, is not an automatic legal bar to an otherwise valid claim for abandonment or constructive abandonment.
- The effect of reconciliation on abandonment-based grounds generally depends on fact questions, including whether the reconciliation was made in good faith and whether it actually restored the marital relationship.
- Courts should evaluate the circumstances of the reconciliation (including initiation, motivation, duration, and the spouses’ conduct during the attempt) rather than applying a per se rule.
- Policy favors allowing spouses to attempt to repair a marriage without automatically forfeiting previously accrued abandonment grounds.
- Summary judgment is improper where the reconciliation’s meaning, good faith, and practical result are disputed and require fact-finding at trial.

## Conclusion

Haymes v. Haymes holds that a six-week, unsuccessful reconciliation occurring after a divorce action is filed—though it involved temporary cohabitation and at least one instance of sexual relations—does not, by itself, extinguish matured claims for abandonment or constructive abandonment; instead, the reconciliation’s legal effect turns on disputed facts such as good faith and whether the parties truly resumed the marital relationship, requiring a trial rather than dismissal as a matter of law.


Haymes v. Haymes, 646 N.Y.S.2d 315 (1996)