Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kevin Costner is worth approximately 400 million. He and his attorneys can spin this info all they want. Even if Christine isn't smart or educated or good with finances.... he married her and thought she would be a good mother for his children. They were married for 20 years. He is acting like a pluperfect JERK. No amount of spin will change that fact.

ITA. He wouldn’t even notice $15-20M and she’d still have to adjust her lifestyle downward. The kids will notice her drastic lifestyle change and blame their dad for not taking care of her.

They’re going to blame their mom for blowing up their family due to boredom.

They're going to realize what a small, miserly percentage of his wealth he gave their mom.

When they get a huge inheritance they’ll understand plus they will realize their mom squanders money.

+1 I have to wonder if all the Christine supporters are divorced?

I've been married for over 30 years and am not particularly a Christine supporter. With a net worth of about 400 million, I just think he's being obnoxiously cheap towards the mother of his children and wife of 20 years.

She signed the prenup. It existed for a reason.

Yes, he knew himself quite well. Guess he's always been obnoxiously cheap.

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for her and think she was duped into thinking this was a real marriage. Normal people are not married for almost 29 years and have no home with their name on it. It is like she was a girlfriend who birthed kids. He is so gross. I feel like he has someone posting for him because he is a pathetic excuse for a man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to know why she filed in the first place? What was the tipping point? Why after all of these years?

She spoke to the wrong people when seeking advice. Someone got in her ear.

I’m guessing she wasn’t happy and someone either pointed out/the lightbulb went in for her that if she didn’t divorce him before the kids were adults she’s would be stuck with just the money agreed to in the pre-nup. Having kids under 18 is her hook to grab some more money from him.

I think it was about infidelity. She asked specifically for an accounting of marital assets that went to other women. I don't believe she pulled that out of thin air. But he's smart enough to have covered his tracks.

There are no marital assets.

It was part of the forensic accounting request, which is standard.

Anonymous wrote:She’s still super rich because she will likely basically force the kids to give her a big cut of their nine figure inheritance. I’ve seen similar happen when a best friend’s grandpa cut out his mom. The best friend and her two siblings ended up giving their mom a free house and like a million dollars.

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!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad my mama always drilled into our heads that a man is not a plan.

Just mama? Single mom? Where was your dad in this conversation?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to know why she filed in the first place? What was the tipping point? Why after all of these years?

She spoke to the wrong people when seeking advice. Someone got in her ear.

I’m guessing she wasn’t happy and someone either pointed out/the lightbulb went in for her that if she didn’t divorce him before the kids were adults she’s would be stuck with just the money agreed to in the pre-nup. Having kids under 18 is her hook to grab some more money from him.

I think it was about infidelity. She asked specifically for an accounting of marital assets that went to other women. I don't believe she pulled that out of thin air. But he's smart enough to have covered his tracks.

There are no marital assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to know why she filed in the first place? What was the tipping point? Why after all of these years?

She spoke to the wrong people when seeking advice. Someone got in her ear.

I’m guessing she wasn’t happy and someone either pointed out/the lightbulb went in for her that if she didn’t divorce him before the kids were adults she’s would be stuck with just the money agreed to in the pre-nup. Having kids under 18 is her hook to grab some more money from him.

I think it was about infidelity. She asked specifically for an accounting of marital assets that went to other women. I don't believe she pulled that out of thin air. But he's smart enough to have covered his tracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to know why she filed in the first place? What was the tipping point? Why after all of these years?

She spoke to the wrong people when seeking advice. Someone got in her ear.

I’m guessing she wasn’t happy and someone either pointed out/the lightbulb went in for her that if she didn’t divorce him before the kids were adults she’s would be stuck with just the money agreed to in the pre-nup. Having kids under 18 is her hook to grab some more money from him.

Anonymous wrote:
I just want to know why she filed in the first place? What was the tipping point? Why after all of these years?

She spoke to the wrong people when seeking advice. Someone got in her ear.

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

Anonymous wrote:Her going on the stand and using those examples to try to strengthen her appeal for more child support tells me this lady’s elevator does not go to the top floor.