Kevin Costner divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

Obviously she left for cause - the economics and risk of leaving with that prenup are as bad as I've ever read about. And people of such substantial means regularly transfer money to their partners when they leave, even gay couples who never had kids together often take care of the person they spent a significant part of their life with. And in this case, they built a life together that doesn't work without her staying home with the kids. He reportedly left for 4 months a time to film movies and tv series, and she stayed home with the kids. Even if they had nannies, no person with a conscious leaves their kids home with only nannies for 4 months at a time. I get that leaving half of all marital property to a partner who never worked no longer holds up, but this case is extreme. He should settle and the settlement should include a meaningful property settlement to allow her to live comfortably.

Nobody marries a movie star and thinks they are home all the time. 4 months is nothing

Nobody deserves 1/2 of a persons earning in or out of a marriage, people deserve enough to live. She got way more.

They settled on the agreement they both wrote and signed.

She’s a designer, go design

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

There is a house for <$2M

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4710-Eleanor-Dr-Carpinteria-CA-93013/15875241_zpid/

One town over

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8109-Puesta-Del-Sol-Carpinteria-CA-93013/16308116_zpid/

Or one town the other way Santa Barbara

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/208-S-Voluntario-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15883077_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/415-N-Canada-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15889682_zpid/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge could throw out pre nup and then she’d be entitled to 1/2 in California. I would think it would be less risky for him to be more generous with her and just settle dispute.

+1. I find it hard to believe this prenup is going to stand. Under CA law she'd be entitled to 1/2 of the assets accumulated during the marriage of 20 years, which is going to be a whole lot more than $1million. He'd be smart to settle. I agree with PP that Costner's treatment of her is horrible. And he's trying to kick her out of the house? I wouldn't go willingly either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

It’s the “Nannie’s” poster again. Has it out for women who can afford nannies.

Not against Nannie’s just pointing out she has a great life all expense paid.

Sorry but you’re not a salaried employee you were a wife. Now you’re not,

You are very recognizable because of your miscapitalization and mispunctuation of that one word

And how you make every sentence a paragraph. We know you're not against nannies; you always trash MBs (Mom Bosses).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

All good points, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge could throw out pre nup and then she’d be entitled to 1/2 in California. I would think it would be less risky for him to be more generous with her and just settle dispute.

+1. I find it hard to believe this prenup is going to stand. Under CA law she'd be entitled to 1/2 of the assets accumulated during the marriage of 20 years, which is going to be a whole lot more than $1million. He'd be smart to settle. I agree with PP that Costner's treatment of her is horrible. And he's trying to kick her out of the house? I wouldn't go willingly either.

The trust looks like a contract of adhesion. The terms are egregious and contrary to public policy. If I were the judge I’d break it.

[Anonymous]

Yeah the 1 million should AT MINIMUM be adjusted for inflation.

Also, a lot of time judges will take into account equal standards of living for both parties. I think KC is going to have to settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge could throw out pre nup and then she’d be entitled to 1/2 in California. I would think it would be less risky for him to be more generous with her and just settle dispute.

+1. I find it hard to believe this prenup is going to stand. Under CA law she'd be entitled to 1/2 of the assets accumulated during the marriage of 20 years, which is going to be a whole lot more than $1million. He'd be smart to settle. I agree with PP that Costner's treatment of her is horrible. And he's trying to kick her out of the house? I wouldn't go willingly either.

He has the same lawyer as Kelly Clarkson. The prenup will stand.

[Anonymous]

This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

+1

[Anonymous]

So celebs giving underclass women $100K to risk their life carrying a child is fine…

…but $1M cash and $40K per month for the next nearly 10 years is cruel?

All she did was pop out 3 kids, then had servants, nannie’s and help doing everything. Big whoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So celebs giving underclass women $100K to risk their life carrying a child is fine…

…but $1M cash and $40K per month for the next nearly 10 years is cruel?

All she did was pop out 3 kids, then had servants, nannie’s and help doing everything. Big whoop.

Already covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

Obviously she left for cause - the economics and risk of leaving with that prenup are as bad as I've ever read about. And people of such substantial means regularly transfer money to their partners when they leave, even gay couples who never had kids together often take care of the person they spent a significant part of their life with. And in this case, they built a life together that doesn't work without her staying home with the kids. He reportedly left for 4 months a time to film movies and tv series, and she stayed home with the kids. Even if they had nannies, no person with a conscious leaves their kids home with only nannies for 4 months at a time. I get that leaving half of all marital property to a partner who never worked no longer holds up, but this case is extreme. He should settle and the settlement should include a meaningful property settlement to allow her to live comfortably.

Nobody marries a movie star and thinks they are home all the time. 4 months is nothing

Nobody deserves 1/2 of a persons earning in or out of a marriage, people deserve enough to live. She got way more.

They settled on the agreement they both wrote and signed.

She’s a designer, go design

I agree with the bolded -- that no one marries a movie star expecting them to be home all the time -- but since both of his wives have/had the same complaint, it sounds like he is really just never home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the 1 million should AT MINIMUM be adjusted for inflation.

Also, a lot of time judges will take into account equal standards of living for both parties. I think KC is going to have to settle.

So you’d be happy with $1.5?

I doubt it.