## Facts

- April Lawrence and William Andrew (“Andy”) Lawrence married in 1988.
- In the spring of 2003, the couple separated for about a week, with Andy leaving the marital home.
- After Andy returned home, April confronted him about rumors that he had an affair.
- Andy admitted he had an affair in 2002 and asked April to forgive him.
- On April 17, 2003, April filed for divorce, alleging adultery and, alternatively, irreconcilable differences.
- Both spouses submitted affidavits acknowledging that Andy committed adultery in 2002.
- The parties attempted to reconcile after the filing, but April did not dismiss her divorce complaint.
- In the fall of 2003, April asked Andy to move out; he did not.
- In December 2003, April moved out of the marital home.
- Andy moved for summary judgment on April’s adultery-based divorce ground, arguing April had condoned the adultery by resuming the marital relationship after learning of it.
- April opposed summary judgment with an affidavit asserting (1) Andy continued the affair after the attempted reconciliation and (2) Andy resumed marital relations to defeat adultery as a divorce ground.
- The chancellor granted Andy partial summary judgment on the adultery ground, and April appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancellor properly granted summary judgment on April’s adultery claim based on condonation when April’s affidavit alleged continued adultery and bad-faith reconciliation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the adultery ground.
- The court held that the evidence created genuine issues of material fact on whether April condoned the adultery and, if so, whether any condonation was defeated by continued misconduct or lack of good faith.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Condonation is an affirmative defense to adultery that generally requires knowledge of the misconduct, forgiveness, and resumption of the marital relationship.
- Condonation is conditional; it may be withdrawn or rendered ineffective if the offending spouse continues the misconduct or otherwise fails to act in good faith after reconciliation.
- Summary judgment is improper when competing affidavits and reasonable inferences create fact disputes on intent, continued adultery, and the nature and effect of an attempted reconciliation.
- When the record permits more than one reasonable view of whether condonation occurred (or whether it remained effective), the issue should be resolved by the factfinder rather than on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

Because April’s sworn response raised material fact disputes about whether she truly condoned Andy’s adultery and whether the adultery continued after reconciliation, the appellate court reversed the partial summary judgment barring the adultery-based divorce claim and remanded for further proceedings.


Lawrence v. Lawrence, 956 So. 2d 251 (2006)