Kevin Costner divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: He claims she spent over $2 million on plastic surgery last year. He rips her for making public that he broke the news about their divorce to their kids on a 10-minute video call, saying that is "most upsetting to me" in this process.

but mostly, he does not want his child support payments to cover his soon-to-be ex-wife's cosmetic surgery procedures.

How does one possibly spend $2 million on plastic surgery?

See the Heather Dubrow thread on how she has so much money. Beverly Hills plastic surgeons cost $$$$.

Heather Dubrow is rich thanks to her late brother-in-law.

How so? Seems like all their income-generating activities including a hugely profitable sale of their palatial home certainly contributed to their multi-million net worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: He claims she spent over $2 million on plastic surgery last year. He rips her for making public that he broke the news about their divorce to their kids on a 10-minute video call, saying that is "most upsetting to me" in this process.

but mostly, he does not want his child support payments to cover his soon-to-be ex-wife's cosmetic surgery procedures.

How does one possibly spend $2 million on plastic surgery?

See the Heather Dubrow thread on how she has so much money. Beverly Hills plastic surgeons cost $$$$.

Heather Dubrow is rich thanks to her late brother-in-law.

How so? Seems like all their income-generating activities including a hugely profitable sale of their palatial home certainly contributed to their multi-million net worth.

They just sold that house this year. They were mega rich 12 years ago when they bought that land and then spent millions and millions building the house and furnishing it. On top of living a luxurious lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

No one is entitled to an inheritance. Stop being greedy. They aren't relevant once they are adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe all these people saying 1.6M is good money for 20 years of work for a middle aged woman who has no pension, no 401k, and gave up her career. I think fair would be 5-10M. I agree with PP that prenups should have force but I think in the family law context the judges can look to whether the terms are unconscionable in context. If I were KC’s lawyer, I’d advise settling it out in the 5-10 range. It’s possible they’ve tried that and she’s holding out for more.

She didn’t give up a career though. She never had one.

Her career was raising their kids and other family needs while he was gone for months.

Oh please, don’t be disingenuous! We are not talking about a run of the mill SAHP who stays at home and gives up their career because

a) it makes financial sense because of childcare costs;

b) parents decided at least one of them should stay home to provide care for their children in lieu of (extended) family, hired help, etc;

c) parents decided at least one of them should be home for their kids because the other parent couldn’t be as present.

I can understand b and c in their case, but that doesn’t change the HARD fact that this couple STILL had a ton of hired help, despite the fact that one parent was home 100% of the time. “They” (she) had personal assistant, nanny, maid, chef, and a chauffeur too (I bet).

Besides being emotionally and physically available, NOTHING else correlates to the typical SAHP experience: no cleaning, laundry, cooking, driving kids to and from while juggling multiple schedules and activities, no grocery shopping, errands to run. You know… stuff regular people do.

And having all this help is ok - I don’t see anything wrong with it if you have the means. I mean, what can be better than being able to enjoy time with your children without having to do the grind work? Anyone (or almost) who can afford would want that!

But once that 13y old began K, there was no reason for the mom to not work if that was her desire/goal… her kids were in school at least 6 hours per day and she had the luxury of a professional support system to deal with the other 2 or 3 hours of a typical work day (remember: nanny, personal assistant, chef, maid).

Or even work part time and start establishing a name for herself.

Who cares if they had tons of hired help? They could afford it. He was gone for months at a time. And, they had plenty of money so there was no need for her to work. So, she goes and works for $100K a year. You really think that's going to impact their lifestyle in any way?

Your value is for women to work regardless of the situation. That was not theirs nor their agreement when they got married and have kids.

I have teens and SAH. It's far more work with teens given they have 1-2 activities every day after school, some at 3:30 and then they are the every few week ortho appointments, etc. Its great if you have a flexible job but when I worked I didn't nor does my spouse. And, what I'd earn would cover a driver/nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

No one is entitled to an inheritance. Stop being greedy. They aren't relevant once they are adults.

You know who is not entitled to anything? Christine. Because she agreed to only be entitled to 1.5M.

As for inheritance. You must be new here. This forum is FILLED with millennials who think they are entitled to an inheritance. And women convinced their ex husband’s new wife will drain her kid’s inheritance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe all these people saying 1.6M is good money for 20 years of work for a middle aged woman who has no pension, no 401k, and gave up her career. I think fair would be 5-10M. I agree with PP that prenups should have force but I think in the family law context the judges can look to whether the terms are unconscionable in context. If I were KC’s lawyer, I’d advise settling it out in the 5-10 range. It’s possible they’ve tried that and she’s holding out for more.

She didn’t give up a career though. She never had one.

Her career was raising their kids and other family needs while he was gone for months.

Oh please, don’t be disingenuous! We are not talking about a run of the mill SAHP who stays at home and gives up their career because

a) it makes financial sense because of childcare costs;

b) parents decided at least one of them should stay home to provide care for their children in lieu of (extended) family, hired help, etc;

c) parents decided at least one of them should be home for their kids because the other parent couldn’t be as present.

I can understand b and c in their case, but that doesn’t change the HARD fact that this couple STILL had a ton of hired help, despite the fact that one parent was home 100% of the time. “They” (she) had personal assistant, nanny, maid, chef, and a chauffeur too (I bet).

Besides being emotionally and physically available, NOTHING else correlates to the typical SAHP experience: no cleaning, laundry, cooking, driving kids to and from while juggling multiple schedules and activities, no grocery shopping, errands to run. You know… stuff regular people do.

And having all this help is ok - I don’t see anything wrong with it if you have the means. I mean, what can be better than being able to enjoy time with your children without having to do the grind work? Anyone (or almost) who can afford would want that!

But once that 13y old began K, there was no reason for the mom to not work if that was her desire/goal… her kids were in school at least 6 hours per day and she had the luxury of a professional support system to deal with the other 2 or 3 hours of a typical work day (remember: nanny, personal assistant, chef, maid).

Or even work part time and start establishing a name for herself.

Who cares if they had tons of hired help? They could afford it. He was gone for months at a time. And, they had plenty of money so there was no need for her to work. So, she goes and works for $100K a year. You really think that's going to impact their lifestyle in any way?

Your value is for women to work regardless of the situation. That was not theirs nor their agreement when they got married and have kids.

I have teens and SAH. It's far more work with teens given they have 1-2 activities every day after school, some at 3:30 and then they are the every few week ortho appointments, etc. Its great if you have a flexible job but when I worked I didn't nor does my spouse. And, what I'd earn would cover a driver/nanny.

You can’t have it both ways. Either she was a SAHM sacrificing her life to do all for her kids. Or she was a SAHM with full household of staff to do everything for her/the kids. Btw her divorce filing outlines the needs that she has for staff to continue to care for her kids - including a scheduler. Because she is so busy doing…what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

I forgot he has a child from another relationship (not the first wife).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: He claims she spent over $2 million on plastic surgery last year. He rips her for making public that he broke the news about their divorce to their kids on a 10-minute video call, saying that is "most upsetting to me" in this process.

but mostly, he does not want his child support payments to cover his soon-to-be ex-wife's cosmetic surgery procedures.

How does one possibly spend $2 million on plastic surgery?

See the Heather Dubrow thread on how she has so much money. Beverly Hills plastic surgeons cost $$$$.

Even with the top of the top $$$ surgeons there and in NYC, one of the most pricey procedures would be a facelift at around 100k. So I'm also wondering how you could hit 2 million or how your body could even support that in the span of a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

Why do you asume they don’t already have healthy trust funds set up? And the mother of the oldest 3 got a very fat settlement. Unless she’s leaving it to her cats the kids will get that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

All kids are entitled to support as children, once adults they are entitled to nothing. That's just greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe all these people saying 1.6M is good money for 20 years of work for a middle aged woman who has no pension, no 401k, and gave up her career. I think fair would be 5-10M. I agree with PP that prenups should have force but I think in the family law context the judges can look to whether the terms are unconscionable in context. If I were KC’s lawyer, I’d advise settling it out in the 5-10 range. It’s possible they’ve tried that and she’s holding out for more.

She didn’t give up a career though. She never had one.

Her career was raising their kids and other family needs while he was gone for months.

Oh please, don’t be disingenuous! We are not talking about a run of the mill SAHP who stays at home and gives up their career because

a) it makes financial sense because of childcare costs;

b) parents decided at least one of them should stay home to provide care for their children in lieu of (extended) family, hired help, etc;

c) parents decided at least one of them should be home for their kids because the other parent couldn’t be as present.

I can understand b and c in their case, but that doesn’t change the HARD fact that this couple STILL had a ton of hired help, despite the fact that one parent was home 100% of the time. “They” (she) had personal assistant, nanny, maid, chef, and a chauffeur too (I bet).

Besides being emotionally and physically available, NOTHING else correlates to the typical SAHP experience: no cleaning, laundry, cooking, driving kids to and from while juggling multiple schedules and activities, no grocery shopping, errands to run. You know… stuff regular people do.

And having all this help is ok - I don’t see anything wrong with it if you have the means. I mean, what can be better than being able to enjoy time with your children without having to do the grind work? Anyone (or almost) who can afford would want that!

But once that 13y old began K, there was no reason for the mom to not work if that was her desire/goal… her kids were in school at least 6 hours per day and she had the luxury of a professional support system to deal with the other 2 or 3 hours of a typical work day (remember: nanny, personal assistant, chef, maid).

Or even work part time and start establishing a name for herself.

Who cares if they had tons of hired help? They could afford it. He was gone for months at a time. And, they had plenty of money so there was no need for her to work. So, she goes and works for $100K a year. You really think that's going to impact their lifestyle in any way?

Your value is for women to work regardless of the situation. That was not theirs nor their agreement when they got married and have kids.

I have teens and SAH. It's far more work with teens given they have 1-2 activities every day after school, some at 3:30 and then they are the every few week ortho appointments, etc. Its great if you have a flexible job but when I worked I didn't nor does my spouse. And, what I'd earn would cover a driver/nanny.

You can’t have it both ways. Either she was a SAHM sacrificing her life to do all for her kids. Or she was a SAHM with full household of staff to do everything for her/the kids. Btw her divorce filing outlines the needs that she has for staff to continue to care for her kids - including a scheduler. Because she is so busy doing…what?

Someone still had to handle all that. He wasn't around much between work and his affairs. Either way, regardless she raised those kids and managed everything. Their agreement was that she's stay home. He has plenty of money so what he offered for a house and other things was absurd especially when child support will stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

All kids are entitled to support as children, once adults they are entitled to nothing. That's just greedy.

Those under 18 are being financially cared for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe all these people saying 1.6M is good money for 20 years of work for a middle aged woman who has no pension, no 401k, and gave up her career. I think fair would be 5-10M. I agree with PP that prenups should have force but I think in the family law context the judges can look to whether the terms are unconscionable in context. If I were KC’s lawyer, I’d advise settling it out in the 5-10 range. It’s possible they’ve tried that and she’s holding out for more.

She didn’t give up a career though. She never had one.

Her career was raising their kids and other family needs while he was gone for months.

Oh please, don’t be disingenuous! We are not talking about a run of the mill SAHP who stays at home and gives up their career because

a) it makes financial sense because of childcare costs;

b) parents decided at least one of them should stay home to provide care for their children in lieu of (extended) family, hired help, etc;

c) parents decided at least one of them should be home for their kids because the other parent couldn’t be as present.

I can understand b and c in their case, but that doesn’t change the HARD fact that this couple STILL had a ton of hired help, despite the fact that one parent was home 100% of the time. “They” (she) had personal assistant, nanny, maid, chef, and a chauffeur too (I bet).

Besides being emotionally and physically available, NOTHING else correlates to the typical SAHP experience: no cleaning, laundry, cooking, driving kids to and from while juggling multiple schedules and activities, no grocery shopping, errands to run. You know… stuff regular people do.

And having all this help is ok - I don’t see anything wrong with it if you have the means. I mean, what can be better than being able to enjoy time with your children without having to do the grind work? Anyone (or almost) who can afford would want that!

But once that 13y old began K, there was no reason for the mom to not work if that was her desire/goal… her kids were in school at least 6 hours per day and she had the luxury of a professional support system to deal with the other 2 or 3 hours of a typical work day (remember: nanny, personal assistant, chef, maid).

Or even work part time and start establishing a name for herself.

Who cares if they had tons of hired help? They could afford it. He was gone for months at a time. And, they had plenty of money so there was no need for her to work. So, she goes and works for $100K a year. You really think that's going to impact their lifestyle in any way?

Your value is for women to work regardless of the situation. That was not theirs nor their agreement when they got married and have kids.

I have teens and SAH. It's far more work with teens given they have 1-2 activities every day after school, some at 3:30 and then they are the every few week ortho appointments, etc. Its great if you have a flexible job but when I worked I didn't nor does my spouse. And, what I'd earn would cover a driver/nanny.

You can’t have it both ways. Either she was a SAHM sacrificing her life to do all for her kids. Or she was a SAHM with full household of staff to do everything for her/the kids. Btw her divorce filing outlines the needs that she has for staff to continue to care for her kids - including a scheduler. Because she is so busy doing…what?

Someone still had to handle all that. He wasn't around much between work and his affairs. Either way, regardless she raised those kids and managed everything. Their agreement was that she's stay home. He has plenty of money so what he offered for a house and other things was absurd especially when child support will stop.

Yes, that’s what the house manager did. Christine is getting what she wanted from this divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know all the details, but after being married for so long couldn't they have agreed on a COLA for the $1M and in return she signs an NDA? Then the divorce is over quickly, no bad press for Kevin, and they move on. $1M is a good sum, but I can see how after 20 years of marriage that sum has eroded due to inflation. The prenup is binding, but asking nicely for a COLA may have worked and it could have benefited him to avoid this embarrassing circus.

Posters keep bringing this up as if he cares.

He should care. He has children and they are old enough that all their friends are talking about this. Also, Kevin isn't that young anymore. He could die tomorrow and this would be his legacy. He should wrap this up, pursue some good projects, and put something better in people's recent memory.

His kids will care that he is taking care of them, which he is. And his children with his first wife will definitely care he’s not losing large amounts of money to Christine.

He’s got plenty of money to support everyone and his first set of kids are not kids and not relevant.

They are most certainly relevant and their inheritance should be protected from Christine.

The 100k+ being paid to Christine provides for way more than half of the expenses of the children under 18.

I agree, the first set of kids and the one-off love child might be adults but they are entitled to as much as the second set of kids. You can bet they are all rooting for team KC. Secure that inheritance. $$$$$$$$$.

All kids are entitled to support as children, once adults they are entitled to nothing. That's just greedy.

Anyone in their right mind would rather leave/share their money to/with their own children, their flesh and blood, rather than an ex.