In Oakley v. Oakley, 165 N.C. App. 859, 599 S.E.2d 925 (2004), the Court reviewed prior cases addressing whether separated spouses had resumed their marital relationship and stated their analyses were instructive in determining the meaning of "marital rights, duties, and obligations" under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-16.9. 165 N.C. App. at 862, 599 S.E.2d at 928;. In Oakley, the Court articulated two methods to determine whether a separated spouse had cohabited with a third party by voluntarily and mutually assuming "the marital rights, duties, and obligations . . . usually manifested by married people." Id. The Court stated: Our courts use one of two methods to determine whether the parties have resumed their marital relationship, depending on whether the parties present conflicting evidence about the relationship. See Schultz v. Schultz, 107 N.C. App. 366, 420 S.E.2d 186 (1992), disc. rev. denied, 333 N.C. 347, 426 S.E.2d 710 (1993). In the first test, developed from Adamee, where there is objective evidence, that is not conflicting, that the parties have held themselves out as man and wife, the court does not consider the subjective intent of the parties. Schultz, 107 N.C. App. at 373, 420 S.E.2d at 190. The other test grew out of the opinion in Hand v. Hand, 46 N.C. App. 82, 264 S.E.2d 597, disc. rev. denied, 300 N.C. 556, 270 S.E.2d 107 (1980), and addresses cases where the objective evidence of cohabitation is conflicting and thus allows for an evaluation of the parties' subjective intent. Schultz, 107 N.C. App. at 371, 420 S.E.2d at 189. Id. at 863, 599 S.E.2d at 928