Prenups are rarely discussed in public spaces.
Growing up, I’d heard the word in K*nye West’s “Gold Digger” (“If you ain’t no punk / Holla, ‘We want prenup! We want prenup!’”) but had so little context for what it meant that I misheard the lyrics as “We want peanuts!” for years.
The stigma around prenuptial agreements was confronted on Tuesday night at perfect lovers, a Durham coffee shop and flex space that has hosted everything from yoga classes to spoken word performances. Landing at the tail end of Valentine’s month, the event, titled “Reimagining Prenups,” sought to reframe the legal contracts—often seen as unromantic or even mercenary—as tools for fostering honesty and equity in relationships.
Rows of chairs faced the front of the room where seven panelists sat in a row: two social justice-oriented family attorneys, a woman navigating divorce, a married couple with a prenup, and an engaged queer couple considering one.
Based on a show of hands, most of the 30 people in the audience were members of the Triangle chapter of the night’s sponsor, Resource Generation, an organization where young people with wealth work together to redistribute their money and challenge systemic inequalities. (While the event was free to attend, the $25 suggested donation to the Pauli Murray Center reflected the socioeconomic makeup of the room.) New Legacy Lab and Cardinal Retirement Planning were cosponsors.
Hilary Pollen, who has been involved in Resource Generation since 2020, facilitated.
“This is kind of experimental,” Pollen said in her opening remarks. “It may feel really inspiring and beautiful. It may also feel a little bit uncomfortable, so we’re just going to be okay with that.”
To break the ice, she asked attendees what comes to mind when they hear the word “prenup.” The room was silent for a few moments.
“It means you’re gonna get divorced and don’t love each other,” offered one person.
“Awkward,” said another.
Indeed, while people felt comfortable enough to come out to the event, there was palpable guardedness around the topic. During a casual introduction before the event began, upon learning I was a reporter, a person sitting next to me immediately stated, “Don’t quote me.” (Fair enough!). Later, during a paired exercise about finances in relationships, my conversation partner appeared slightly alarmed when I mentioned I was a reporter, though we ended up having a good chat off the record. Even one of the panelists—the one navigating a divorce—emailed me after the event to request anonymity.
Before panelists delved into personal stories, the two attorneys provided a rundown on prenups in North Carolina, touching on legal frameworks and common misconceptions.
“If you don’t have a prenuptial arrangement, the General Assembly has one for you,” said Milan Pham, referencing North Carolina’s default marital contract. “It’s really shocking to people when I explain to them what the document says.”
Pham explained that under North Carolina law, everything amassed between the date of marriage and date of separation is considered joint marital property, even if it’s only in one person’s name. This includes retirement accounts, property, investment accounts, cars, and bank accounts—as well as debt.
Sometimes people decide not to sign the default contracting after hearing the details, Pham said, and draw up their own contract. Others decide not to get married at all.
According to Pham, prenups are most common among three groups: people who understand the ramifications of marriage (often divorcées), wealthy younger people with inherited wealth (“my dad said I need one”), and queer people, who often have a heightened awareness of legal protections since marriage equality came later.
The other attorney, Barri Payne, said communication around finances between partners is critical and urged attendees to “start having these conversations sooner.”
“A couple might’ve been dating for two years, and before getting in the attorney’s office, there was no disclosure of what their assets are,” Payne said.
The anonymous panelist shared her experience with a boilerplate prenup that resulted in a messy divorce situation involving disputes over debt and assets. Both she and her soon-to-be ex-husband came from wealth but they never discussed expectations about resource distribution or long-term financial goals, she said.
“If you don’t talk about it and you aren’t granular about it, the other person will fill in the blanks,” she warned.
Her advice was straightforward: “Know your sphere, know thyself, know your assets, know your debts.”
Christiana and Doug “Buddy” Amis, the married couple, offered insights into navigating what they described as a cross-class relationship.
“Like a college degree, I was told you just have to get one,” Buddy said about prenups. As a business owner with inherited wealth, he knew he wanted to keep certain assets separate: his race car, his house, his business.
Christiana, who said she’s from a working class background, said she hadn’t been surprised when Buddy wanted a prenup: “That’s what rich people do,” she recalled thinking.
They created an arrangement that works for them: separate finances with a joint account that they both contribute to. If they divorce, the joint account will be split down the middle with a formula for alimony based on the time they’ve been married.
For large purchases, they’ve developed a system where Buddy contributes some, Christiana contributes some, and the joint account covers some. They revisit their budget annually to make sure that their arrangement remains aligned with their circumstances.
Kat Melheim and Rebecca Balter, the engaged queer couple, also characterized their relationship as cross-class. Balter has inherited wealth while Melheim described her background as middle class. Melheim said that her “necessity to work and save will be radically different” after she marries Balter, and that while a prenup initially seemed unnecessary, “if we get divorced I don’t want to be screwed,” acknowledging that “you don’t know the ‘divorce you.’”
Balter said she would want to give Melheim a lump sum in the event of a divorce but isn’t yet sure how to land on the amount. The couple plans to address retirement concerns specifically in their agreement, ensuring Melheim won’t be disadvantaged if her career trajectory changes due to their marriage.
Throughout the evening, attendees sipped wine and nibbled on strawberries and Ghirardelli chocolate squares. Perhaps inevitably, there were incongruous elements to an uncomfortable discussion like this—participants with access to significant wealth discussing contracts designed to protect wealth, while simultaneously seeking to make those agreements more equitable.
As the evening progressed, though, the atmosphere waned from cautious to comfortable. Any joke from the panel was embraced by the room as an opportunity to release tension through laughter. When Pollen suggested that Pham must end up acting almost as a therapist in cross-class prenup situations, Pham replied, “Well, we are called attorneys and counselors at law,” generating a wave of superabundant chuckles. She went on to say that she’s actually pursuing certification as a financial therapist specifically because these conversations so often unearth deeper traumas.
The night wrapped up with a quick Q&A session. One attendee asked the question likely on many minds: “So, should everyone get a prenup?”
“I don’t know that I go as far as saying everybody should have one,” Payne said. “But I think everybody should have the types of discussions that we’re talking about now.”
Follow Staff Writer Lena Geller on X or send an email to lgeller@indyweek.com. Comment on this story at backtalk@indyweek.com.