Filing 4 divorce but reconcile then divorce @ a later time - dividing the property

This entire story makes no sense to me.

Just talked to her, she didn't think it was filed. But now thank's to you she's going to check if her reconcile paper was signed by a judge. Guess they want to be sure she's been living with him since 89, that she didn't move out. She's shocked because she didn't realize that going for a divorce in 89 would have anything to do with this divorce. Wasn't prepared for it. I appreciate all your help & so does she. I'll post what happens. It was a first for all of us. Never heard of anything like this before. Thank you

What is a "reconcile paper"? What does having filed for divorce in 1989 have to do with today? What does moving out of a house have to do with ANYTHING?

I'm a family law attorney in California and a certified family law specialist in this state and I will repeat what I said: none of this makes any sense.

Doesn't make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to any of us.! When she reconciled in 89 her lawyer sent her a paper stating they got back together. Thought that was the end of it. But her husband brought it up to his lawyer at this divorce & they want proof she's been living with him since 89. Otherwise she can only split what their assets where in 89, not what their worth in 2008. I know it's weird but it's true! She has her kids & some bills to prove she lived there so we're hoping with all that evidence & this reconcile paper they'll just throw it out. Time will tell.

All I can make of this is this:

We have a rule of law in California that says that after parties separate in anticipation of not remaining married (i.e., they commence "living separately and apart") their earnings are no longer community property and in some cases their acquisitions may not be either. Debts incurred after separation are assigned to the party who incurred them as a separate obligation. Now, in California none of this would be an issue because here a reconciliation has the effect of canceling a prior date of separation (separations are expected to be permanent).

Since this concerns another state all I can assume is that that state has a similar rule on separation (perhaps triggered by the filing of a divorce case) but not a rule that says reconciliation cancels a prior date of separation. Although the facts seem somewhat convoluted this may be what is going on.

Check with a local attorney to get a definitive answer.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here - and I'm not sure anyone else does - but it sounds to me (and I'm in NY) like the divorce was granted in 1989, they moved back in together, now (for whatever reason) someone wants another divorce/rehearing of the terms of the 1989 divorce.

As far as I know the Court doesn't care if you reconcile. The Attorneys don't care if you reconcile. The Court/Attorneys only care if you show up and/or pay your legal fees. No one sends a letter if you reconcile.

I think this is an old divorce that someone is attempting to renegotiate.

I'd love to see the various paperwork on this one.

- Always ready to be corrected but otherwise this makes no sense to me.

1. She moved out w/her children in 89
2. Went to a lawyer & started a divorce & asked for child support in 89
3. He was served divorce papers & paid child support for 7 mons in 89
4. They reconciled after 7 mons in 89
5. Never got divorced in 89
6. Her lawyer sent her a paper saying that they reconciled. That they Never went through with the divorce in 89, Nothing was ever separated & no bills were made by either
7. Stayed together for 20 yrs
8. Finally had enough, kids were grown so she decided to see a lawyer for a divorce in 08
9. Started paperwork for divorce w a new lawyer
10. Went to court & his lawyer brought in papers saying she went for a divorce in 89 & said she was only entitled to the assets they had at that time(in 89). House value included
11. The court seemed to take it seriously that he was "served papers".
12 Told her she has to bring in her children & anything with her name on it to verify that she lived there for the last 20 yrs
13. Her lawyer said she could have lost everything because he was "served". ( her lawyer knew & never had her prepare anything having to do with her prior separation, why I don't know if it was that important)
14. She didn't think & neither did anyone else that something she did 20 yrs ago & cancelled would have anything to do with her getting divorced now. They never divided anything in 89, didn't make any additional bills, didn't marry & divorce anyone else, just got back together.
15. Now thanks to this site, she's going to find her reconcile paper from 89 that her lawyer at that time sent her & see if a judge signed it or anyone from the court. She only remembers that her lawyer sent it to her.
I know this is weird, we think he just doesn't want to give her half of what their assets are worth now & his pension so he's trying anything.
I don't understand why the court doesn't say that what they did 20 yrs ago doesn't have anything to do with this case now since they Didn't divorce, that no divorce was ever granted & they've been living together since then. That's why I wrote. We never heard of anything like this before. Esp since she has tons of proof that she's been living w/him since then.


7. 20 yrs later

Wow - did you say what State this is in? I still fail to grasp why the divorce/reconciliation in 1989 has anything to do with the property settlement today if they didn't get divorced in 1989 ... Or for that matter what the proof that they lived together all this time has to do with anything.

This is really an interesting question - I'm looking forward to seeing how it gets resolved.

Some of these cases and what goes on are really amazing. You describe/outline it well. It just pretty flies in the face of the Law.

In PA, Philly to be exact. I'll post what I find out. Seems like a waste of court time & money to me. Thanks for getting back so soon, it's apprecitated.