Rosie O'Donnell, who married Michelle Rounds in a small private ceremony in June, has a pre-nuptial agreement that reportedly includes a clause saying if her beautiful new bride cheats, then she gets nothing.
To me, that seems a bit harsh. But lawyers I reached out to say even non-celebrities make those kinds of stipulations in pre-nups all the time. Philly lawyer Lynne Gold-Bikin, a nationally-known family law expert, said, ""Insecure, isn't she? I've seen this in other pre-nups."
"(It) turns the ultimate battle into a war although, with celebs, there are so many reporters around, maybe cheating would be easy to prove," Gold-Bikin added.
These days, pre-nuptial agreements include anything from who gets the dog in the event of a split to how family finances will be divvied up.
"Pre-nups can include practically anything that the parties agree to," pointed out L.A.-based family law attorney David T. Pisarra. "It is a personal choice. While bringing up something as sensitive as cheating may be very awkward, there's no question it draws a line in the sand."
"I am actually seeing more cases of pre-nups that includes specific language around cheating as a stipulation for not receiving alimony or sharing assets. Most often by those who have been cheated on in a previous marriage," he added. "But when you're looking at the marriage contract as what it is, a contract, it appears that Rosie is not willing to take any chances."
According to the New York Post, the couple had been negotiating the pre-nup since getting engaged in December.
Pre-nups make sense when both one or borth parties have assets to protect. But when they also spell out stipulations against, say, straying as O'Donnell's reportedly does, what does that say about good, old-fashioned trust?