Anonymous wrote:She's not going to have "a few million in the bank." Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is. She was a fool to sign what she did. A complete fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how all the SAHMs here are calling another SAHM a gold digger and layabout. The nerve is unreal. Are you saying what you do for your family is worthless and not meaningful?

Beltway prole SAHM != a filthy rich California SAHM married to Hollywood royalty with a team of staff at her beck and call. Let’s not pretend she’s done any heavy lifting. She’s a spoiled and coddled layabout.

Where was the petition for divorce filed? I thought Kevin Costner moved out of California to Colorado many years ago.

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read this whole thing - but can someone break down what she is supposed to get?

If it is $1m, that is nothing, compared to what he is worth. What about properties?

Anonymous wrote:She's not going to have "a few million in the bank." Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is. She was a fool to sign what she did. A complete fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not going to have "a few million in the bank." Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is. She was a fool to sign what she did. A complete fool.

She was a fool to sign
She was a fool to stop working
She was a fool to not fully fund a retirement
She a fool for not investing money
She’s a fool for many things…

But she can buy a $2.4 M home and live a very comfortable life and in 30 years she will literally have $2.4M dollars.

So yes if she doesn’t just spend all her money she will have millions in the bank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how all the SAHMs here are calling another SAHM a gold digger and layabout. The nerve is unreal. Are you saying what you do for your family is worthless and not meaningful?

Beltway prole SAHM != a filthy rich California SAHM married to Hollywood royalty with a team of staff at her beck and call. Let’s not pretend she’s done any heavy lifting. She’s a spoiled and coddled layabout.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not going to have "a few million in the bank." Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is. She was a fool to sign what she did. A complete fool.

She was a fool to sign
She was a fool to stop working
She was a fool to not fully fund a retirement
She a fool for not investing money
She’s a fool for many things…

But she can buy a $2.4 M home and live a very comfortable life and in 30 years she will literally have $2.4M dollars.

So yes if she doesn’t just spend all her money she will have millions in the bank.

Anonymous wrote:She's not going to have "a few million in the bank." Not sure why everyone keeps saying she is. She was a fool to sign what she did. A complete fool.

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:

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:Didn't read this whole thing - but can someone break down what she is supposed to get?

If it is $1m, that is nothing, compared to what he is worth. What about properties?

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that he uses his reduced income as justification why he cannot afford the monthly support from not having the Yellowstone income when he was the one that left the show early. It’s been his investment decisions that have reduced his cash flow lately. One might wonder if he did it on purpose.