“With respect, the trial judge erred in his interpretation and application of the separation agreement by failing to give effect to the reconciliation clause that voids the agreement upon reconciliation for more than 90 days.
As this court stated in Sydor, at common law, the effect of reconciliation of separated spouses is to void the separation agreement subject to (a) a clause in the agreement that provides to the contrary or (b) a clause that indicates the intent of the parties that transactions carried out under the agreement will remain in place: at para. 22.
In this case, unlike in Sydor, the separation agreement provides for what will occur if the parties reconcile. By preserving the agreement if the reconciliation is very short-lived, it encourages the parties to attempt to reconcile without fear of the effect of the common law undoing the separation agreement. However, where the reconciliation is successful and lasts for more than 90 days, it essentially confirms the common law result. That is, in the event of a successful reconciliation, the separation agreement is void, except that payments, conveyances or acts that have been completed to carry out the agreement will not be invalidated.
Here, the reconciliation lasted for almost nine years. Therefore, the separation agreement is void, except that “any payment, conveyance or act” completed under the agreement will not be invalidated.”