Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

It was kind of her choice to throw away her paddle and let Kevin paddle for the entirely of the marriage. She got to relax in the most luxurious of canoes just drifting through a life provided for her with a team of people to do all the work that a typical non working parent might do. She has years while still provided for to start to live life as an adult with adult responsibilities. Most of us don't get free rides, we take on responsibilities as adults do. She can do the same and with a lot more help and money than most of us have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is he going to have 50/50 custody when he films on location for months at a time?

He is leaving the show. It has finished filming I believe. He may make different career choices about what porjects and filing schedules he agrees to in contracts once a single parent. They also have household support and a team of people the kids have grown up with. Kids are now teens so not as dependent as they once were.

Ha, no, he is filming right now.

“Horizon: An American Saga is an upcoming American epic Western film co-written, produced, directed by and starring Kevin Costner.” “ A high-profile film project is underway in Moab right now: Director Kevin Costner is using Southeast Utah for much of the filming of his multipart Western epic, Horizon: An American Saga”

Anonymous wrote:His initial statement was that didn’t want this. She is clearly done and He is now acting like a spoiled child with various media leaks trying to embarrass her. To his surprise it isn’t sticking. No one likes him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is he going to have 50/50 custody when he films on location for months at a time?

He is leaving the show. It has finished filming I believe. He may make different career choices about what porjects and filing schedules he agrees to in contracts once a single parent. They also have household support and a team of people the kids have grown up with. Kids are now teens so not as dependent as they once were.

Anonymous wrote:How is he going to have 50/50 custody when he films on location for months at a time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

+1. Five years of rent and then what for the next 20, 30, 40 years?

His behavior is awful. He is trying to force her to give up and stay with him.
He already has a bad reputation but this is pretty extreme. I can look at their situation and think it looks like money to someone like me and people whom do not have spouses worth 400 mil plus unlimited earning potential after. If she is not on par with him her kids suffer and he retains more power. Also for long marriages the idea that you are nothing is horrible. I am glad people
are calling him out. He is not used to no.
His last wife said no after he begged her to stay and promised he would change. He didn’t. Hope he gets his
act together. Maybe she would change her mind if he got therapy (who
goes public about spouses plastic surgery) and agreed to some sort
of post nuptial agreement that gives
her more power in finances. You know
like a married couple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

+1. Five years of rent and then what for the next 20, 30, 40 years?

His behavior is awful. He is trying to force her to give up and stay with him.
He already has a bad reputation but this is pretty extreme. I can look at their situation and think it looks like money to someone like me and people whom do not have spouses worth 400 mil plus unlimited earning potential after. If she is not on par with him her kids suffer and he retains more power. Also for long marriages the idea that you are nothing is horrible. I am glad people
are calling him out. He is not used to no.
His last wife said no after he begged her to stay and promised he would change. He didn’t. Hope he gets his
act together. Maybe she would change her mind if he got therapy (who
goes public about spouses plastic surgery) and agreed to some sort
of post nuptial agreement that gives
her more power in finances. You know
like a married couple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

+1. Five years of rent and then what for the next 20, 30, 40 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

He is not providing a house. He is providing a monthly rental allowance, which presumably will end at some point. The youngest child is what, 13? I'm guessing these monthly amounts will last 5 years at best. I'm not saying she hasn't lived a great life, but I don't think she has accumulated any assets and it sounds to me like she is about to be up a creek with no paddle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

In Christine's case, I believe Kevin is providing a house as well so she has minimal expenses she needs to cover. Her monthly amounts should go a long ways given her housing and all child related costs are covered (many times over). If she gets a job that covers the basics for herself and invests / spends the monthly amount wisely - she should be able to live quite nicely. Her lifestyle will take a hit for sure but that is the reality of divorce for many. I am sure they sign to show they are in it for love and not for the money. Christine has gotten to live a luxurious lifestyle of excess for almost 20 years that has been entirely provided for her, spending as she wished from the sounds of it. That is a massive benefit that most people don't get through marriage. Twenty years of being handed life on a plate and living like the rich and famous based solely on the work and effort of another is a pretty good ride.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.

But the monthly amounts are not forever. Then what? Is she expected to save those amounts rather than spend them? Maybe. I'm not disagreeing that the prenup could hold. I just don't understand why she and Brandon Blackstock signed this rubbish. Lots of women are SAHM's for 20+ years and they have all the rights to an equal share of what was earned during the marriage by the working spouse. Why would someone agree to $1.3M?? That wasn't even that much 20 years ago! Were they drugged? I just don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The articles say he was planning to file if she hadn’t done it first. Would she have gotten more if she had not tried to leave? I would never have signed that prenup. I would have signed A prenup, but not that one.

Signed,
SAHM who hasn’t worked in 16 years (with no prenup thankfully)

I don’t think the full prenup has been released. She’s challenging what she’s eligible for which may be based on specific terms.

He's claiming he owes her $1.3 or $1.4M plus the child support and monthly amount towards a rental home. I haven't read anything that says how long the rental allowance will go. Until the youngest child turns 18? Then what? Having 20 years of marriage and no meaningful assets to show for it is pretty terrible. Something in the prenup should have been tied to the length of the marriage, and which person initiated the divorce. Seems to me like she played her cards all wrong here - will be interesting to see what happens.

She could have amassed her own assets and she will have rights to any of the assets that she contributed to amassing during the marriage. They had a nanny and multiple household staff so it wasn't like she couldn't work. This prenup is very similar to Kelly Clarksons and hers was upheld by the court. She only needed to pay her exhusband 1.3 million (a pittance compared to her income of 1.9 million a month), and she evicted him from the property he was living in, and she kept all the houses and assets gained by her work during the marriage! She did have to pay him alimony of 100K a month for 18 months for him to have time to establish his own financial independence, and she is paying him 46K a month in child support so it isn't like he will struggle - same as Costner's wife.