Kevin Costner divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

She's always been a FT SAHM, which presumably he also wanted. Makes zero sense to change this at a vulnerable moment in the kids' lives.

Agree that she should not be leaving him at such a vulnerable moment in the kids" lives, given the prenup that she signed.
It was a very stupid decision...by her. He will certainly make sure the kids get what they need.

Indeed. And why now? It's not like he cheated or there was some major upheaval to the marriage. She knew he was a major actor and liked the spoils of his career. Makes no sense that she picks this moment to exit and tear her kids lives apart. Guess she had some low-rent friend filling her head with dreams of $100k/mo CS and spousal support on top of that. Dream on, Christine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

Costnerworld? I'm not impressed at all. Everything you wrote can be true, and the real Kevin Costner is showing his true colors as well for the world to see.

[Anonymous]

She apparently is planning to work, per new People article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She apparently is planning to work, per new People article.

“Christine — who now lives in a rental that costs $40,000 per month after being court-ordered to move out of their family compound — testified that she is considering going back to school for a college degree.

"I will look into the steps I need to take and any schooling I need to do, and I will enter the workforce," Christine, 49, said on the stand about how she'll support herself in the future.”

Would have been smart to go to college while she was married so that he would have paid that tab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she could just not take him anymore and given how she is being treated you can understand why.

+1 this
She was very young and pretty and in love with him. At that stage of the relationship, she probably didn't realize how controlling and determined he is. There doesn't appear to have been an affair with someone else on her part; and they were married for 20 years with 3 kids, so I can't imagine why he's treating her this way.
Her rental home isn't inexpensive, but there's nothing exceptional about it by DCUM standards or for the ex-wife of a guy worth $400 million.

She was almost 30. Not “very young.”

PP here. It's "very young" to me, plus there was an 18 year difference between them. Regardless of what she should have or didn't do, Kevin Costner's true ungenerous self is being observed by the world.

Christine isn’t exactly doing herself any favors.

Neither is Mr. Kevin Costner. Worth 400 million dollars and giving his wife of 20 years 1.5 million towards a new home?! Yep, we get it.

She was familiar with the prenup she signed when she chose to exit the marriage. Why is this news to her?

I have no idea why she couldn't figure out that he was miserly and cheap -- from the first small engagement ring that Joan Rivers mocked and thought was a joke -- to his offer of 1.5 million for a home.

I think most people's objection to the prenup is that this sum was decent 20 years ago but needs to be updated for today's market.

Yeah, seems her biggest gripe is housing and rightly so.

Not rightly so. She refused his over to put the downpayment on a house and to pay 100% of the kids expenses. That would have left her with her 1.5M to invest and her 60k in CS to pay for her mtg and spend on herself. Instead she got greedy and tried to fight for almost 3x as much CS and to break the prenup.

You really think that's a fair offer from a husband with a net worth of 400 million?

Regardless, I'm honestly surprised there isn't a standard clause to update these sums with reference to inflation.

The amount adjusted for inflation would be about $2.5m, which I’m sure she would still find insufficient.

I think the housing market is a different animal. She could probably show that a $1m house twenty years ago equates to a $~10m house now.

Lol. On what planet do you live on that houses went 10x since 2004?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

She's always been a FT SAHM, which presumably he also wanted. Makes zero sense to change this at a vulnerable moment in the kids' lives.

That was her choice. I suspect she is doing it now vs 5 years from now because she thought she’d have a better chance to challenge the prenup when the kids were still minors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She apparently is planning to work, per new People article.

“Christine — who now lives in a rental that costs $40,000 per month after being court-ordered to move out of their family compound — testified that she is considering going back to school for a college degree.

"I will look into the steps I need to take and any schooling I need to do, and I will enter the workforce," Christine, 49, said on the stand about how she'll support herself in the future.”

Would have been smart to go to college while she was married so that he would have paid that tab.

So we learn she’s a college flunky. Very interesting how this forum thinks a college flunky is entitled to a lavish nine-figure lifestyle just because she popped out a few kids for a rich guy and let the help so everything. Meanwhile, modern slaves, I mean underclass “surrogates,” get paid maybe $100K to risk their lives for rich women and then get told to buzz off and this forum thinks that is totally kosher. Market rate for underclass is $100K, but sky is the limit for a college flunky gold digger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting that so many define a 'good man' and one who treats a woman well by how much money he gives. He is boiled down to nothing more than a wallet.

What to you then makes one a good woman and who who treats a man well? What does Chrsitine have to do to earn that distinction?

Is she bad and not treating him well if she doesn't keep cooking him dinner? Having sex? What does a wife need to do to be a good woman and to treat her husband well?
People are very clear on this thread that for men, their worth is based on $$ and what defines a good man is how much he has and gives to the woman, but what defines a good woman?

In the Kelly Clarkson divorce thread with a similar prenup - I don't really recall comment about how she is only a good woman and only treats her husband well if she gives him a lot more of her money. No one was calling her names and putting her down for not opening up the bank and ensuring her ex (and children when with him) had the same lifestyle as he had while married to her. It seems few feel that women are defined by $$ and how generous they are to an ex - so what would have made Kelly a good woman who treated her man well?

+1

He actually called her a good mother and also kept the house beautiful on the stand so that point is blown. A good man is protective of his wife and the idea that they were married almost 20 years and her name is on zero including apparently a car before she put her foot down and bought a car is just nuts.

He already owned multiple houses.

In 29 years to have nothing together is strange. Joan Rivers smelled a rat!! Love her!!

Lol!! Joan told her she was stupid on a red carpet! She took one look at her wedding ring and said “OMGoodness that is the smallest thing lol you are an idiot”

LOL. Tell me that’s not a true story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she could just not take him anymore and given how she is being treated you can understand why.

+1 this
She was very young and pretty and in love with him. At that stage of the relationship, she probably didn't realize how controlling and determined he is. There doesn't appear to have been an affair with someone else on her part; and they were married for 20 years with 3 kids, so I can't imagine why he's treating her this way.
Her rental home isn't inexpensive, but there's nothing exceptional about it by DCUM standards or for the ex-wife of a guy worth $400 million.

She was almost 30. Not “very young.”

PP here. It's "very young" to me, plus there was an 18 year difference between them. Regardless of what she should have or didn't do, Kevin Costner's true ungenerous self is being observed by the world.

Christine isn’t exactly doing herself any favors.

Neither is Mr. Kevin Costner. Worth 400 million dollars and giving his wife of 20 years 1.5 million towards a new home?! Yep, we get it.

CPI inflation calculator states that 1.5 million in july2003 is worth 1.6 million in todays dollars. He should round it up to 3 million for each child she bore him and call it a day. You think she would take 3 million?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she could just not take him anymore and given how she is being treated you can understand why.

+1 this
She was very young and pretty and in love with him. At that stage of the relationship, she probably didn't realize how controlling and determined he is. There doesn't appear to have been an affair with someone else on her part; and they were married for 20 years with 3 kids, so I can't imagine why he's treating her this way.
Her rental home isn't inexpensive, but there's nothing exceptional about it by DCUM standards or for the ex-wife of a guy worth $400 million.

She was almost 30. Not “very young.”

PP here. It's "very young" to me, plus there was an 18 year difference between them. Regardless of what she should have or didn't do, Kevin Costner's true ungenerous self is being observed by the world.

Christine isn’t exactly doing herself any favors.

Neither is Mr. Kevin Costner. Worth 400 million dollars and giving his wife of 20 years 1.5 million towards a new home?! Yep, we get it.

She was familiar with the prenup she signed when she chose to exit the marriage. Why is this news to her?

I have no idea why she couldn't figure out that he was miserly and cheap -- from the first small engagement ring that Joan Rivers mocked and thought was a joke -- to his offer of 1.5 million for a home.

I think most people's objection to the prenup is that this sum was decent 20 years ago but needs to be updated for today's market.

that is 2.5 million in today’s inflation dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she could just not take him anymore and given how she is being treated you can understand why.

+1 this
She was very young and pretty and in love with him. At that stage of the relationship, she probably didn't realize how controlling and determined he is. There doesn't appear to have been an affair with someone else on her part; and they were married for 20 years with 3 kids, so I can't imagine why he's treating her this way.
Her rental home isn't inexpensive, but there's nothing exceptional about it by DCUM standards or for the ex-wife of a guy worth $400 million.

She was almost 30. Not “very young.”

PP here. It's "very young" to me, plus there was an 18 year difference between them. Regardless of what she should have or didn't do, Kevin Costner's true ungenerous self is being observed by the world.

Christine isn’t exactly doing herself any favors.

Neither is Mr. Kevin Costner. Worth 400 million dollars and giving his wife of 20 years 1.5 million towards a new home?! Yep, we get it.

She was familiar with the prenup she signed when she chose to exit the marriage. Why is this news to her?

I have no idea why she couldn't figure out that he was miserly and cheap -- from the first small engagement ring that Joan Rivers mocked and thought was a joke -- to his offer of 1.5 million for a home.

I think most people's objection to the prenup is that this sum was decent 20 years ago but needs to be updated for today's market.

Yeah, seems her biggest gripe is housing and rightly so.

Not rightly so. She refused his over to put the downpayment on a house and to pay 100% of the kids expenses. That would have left her with her 1.5M to invest and her 60k in CS to pay for her mtg and spend on herself. Instead she got greedy and tried to fight for almost 3x as much CS and to break the prenup.

You really think that's a fair offer from a husband with a net worth of 400 million?

Didn’t he earn most of that money before they married. His best earning day was the 90’s. Yes he had the Yellowstone hit, but in the 2000’s he had mostly flops or nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

Costnerworld? I'm not impressed at all. Everything you wrote can be true, and the real Kevin Costner is showing his true colors as well for the world to see.

He was generous with the offer to pay all of the kids expenses. He knows she's fleecing him. He's already been through one acrimonious divorce and dragged his feet about going back to the alter. Fool me once... He wasn't fooled twice. Got that prenup and it's paying off handsomely.

Christine is the one painting the rosy picture of Costnerworld - trucked in snow, music piped through the Aspen trees, Cali waterfront lifestyle... her words - "luxury is in their DNA."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

She's always been a FT SAHM, which presumably he also wanted. Makes zero sense to change this at a vulnerable moment in the kids' lives.

It’s already been shown that he invested in her companies twice. That’s not investing in a full time SAHM. Those businesses were either both failures or she had no real follow through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She apparently is planning to work, per new People article.

“Christine — who now lives in a rental that costs $40,000 per month after being court-ordered to move out of their family compound — testified that she is considering going back to school for a college degree.

"I will look into the steps I need to take and any schooling I need to do, and I will enter the workforce," Christine, 49, said on the stand about how she'll support herself in the future.”

Would have been smart to go to college while she was married so that he would have paid that tab.

Now you know she is lying. She is not going back to school. Guarantee she will ask the judge to include tuition and books in the calculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any divorced friends whose husbands were so cheap.

This is not his first divorce. And they didn't make the 400M over their years together - he brought that into the marriage and should rightly keep all of it, including the growth. She traded her looks for a seat at the table in Costnerworld. She should have never left. I'm sure she's realizing that now. I like that Wasser & Co. keeps pressing her on the fact that she doesn't plan to get a job. Shows her true colors.

She's always been a FT SAHM, which presumably he also wanted. Makes zero sense to change this at a vulnerable moment in the kids' lives.

That was her choice. I suspect she is doing it now vs 5 years from now because she thought she’d have a better chance to challenge the prenup when the kids were still minors.

I have a different theory. Costner’s income will decrease now that he has walked away from Yellowstone. She filed for divorce now because the Yellowstone income is still on the table for calculation purposes. In 2024, his income will be his investments only and therefore less support for her.