Can Post-Separation “Adultery” Void a Premarital Agreement in North Carolina? (Part 1 of 2)

Many assume that the rules about marital misconduct stop mattering once a couple is separated. But that assumption grows risky when a premarital agreement has its own conduct clause.

In a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, a husband who had sexual intercourse with another individual after separation, but before his divorce was final, lost his entire premarital agreement.

In Stoeckel v. Stoeckel, No. COA24-865 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the court looked at what “adultery” truly meant in a Wake County couple’s premarital agreement, and whether or not the timing of the conduct mattered. What the court decided offers some interesting insights into similar cases and how you should consider addressing your own.

Note: Stoeckel v. Stoeckel (No. COA24-865) is an unpublished opinion, which means that it’s not a binding legal precedent in North Carolina. However, the case does offer some helpful insights into how NC courts may read similar contract language.

 What Happened in Stoeckel v. Stoeckel?

This case involved William Todd Stoeckel (“Husband”) and Melinda Stoeckel (“Wife”), who were married on November 12, 2013. The two signed a premarital agreement the same day.

Two specific provisions mattered on appeal:

• Article 3 said that if Wife committed adultery during the marriage, she agreed to waive alimony and post-separation support.
• Article 15 said that if Husband “commits adultery or engages in any form of illicit sexual behavior as defined by North Carolina law”, then the entire agreement would become void.

The couple separated on December 31, 2021, and divorced on March 10, 2023. In discovery, Husband admitted that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with another person after the separation but before the divorce judgment.

That left around 14 months between separation and divorce, and the case turned on what happened within that window.

Wife moved for summary judgment in the case, arguing that Husband’s conduct triggered Article 15. The trial court agreed with her and voided the agreement. It later denied Husband’s motions for relief.

What Did Husband Argue on Appeal?

In his appeal, Husband argued that the trial court had used the wrong definition of “adultery” in its decision.

In making his argument, he pointed to North Carolina’s alimony statutes, which count only conduct occurring before the date of separation as marital misconduct (which we have touched on before).

That rule is why many believe that conduct after separation doesn’t matter – and for alimony, it typically doesn’t. However, premarital agreements are private contracts. The question at hand was whether or not the spouses had agreed to something different.

Why Did the Court Read “Adultery” by Its Ordinary Meaning?

In its affirmation, the Court of Appeals started with a basic rule: when a contract is clear, courts enforce it as written and do not add or remove language.

Premarital agreements are read in much the same way, and you’ll see the same attention to wording in how courts enforce separation agreements.

In its decision, the court gave three reasons:

1. Grammar

The phrase “as defined by North Carolina law” modified the statement “illicit sexual behavior” only, not the term “adultery”. As with many legal matters, grammar matters much more than you may expect.

2. Definition

Even if the phrase covered both terms, North Carolina law doesn’t supply a general definition of adultery outside the alimony context. The court used the ordinary legal meaning of adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the person’s spouse.

Husband was still legally married until the official date of divorce, so his conduct fit that definition.

3. Structure

Article 3 in the premarital agreement tied Wife’s alimony waiver to “marital misconduct”, which excludes any post-separation acts. Article 15 never used that term and set no time limit for Husband.

The agreement used “adultery” in two provisions with different purposes, and the court declined to read limits into Article 15 that the parties to the agreement never wrote. With no real dispute over the facts, summary judgment was proper in this case, and the court upheld the denial of Husband’s later motions for relief.

We will look st the ramifications of this case and how it affects how your prenup should be written in our next blog.