Anonymous wrote:Who’s paying her lawyer fees?

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 $$$$.

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 wrote:https://pagesix.com/2023/08/11/kevin-costners-estranged-wife-admits-she-may-not-have-understood-the-prenup-she-signed/

Kevin Costner’s estranged wife, Christine Baumgartner, is arguing that she may not have understood their prenuptial agreement when he signed it in 2004.

“Christine asserts she cannot admit or deny that she understood the Premarital Agreement because she (and apparently all of her attorneys) do not understand the word ‘understand,'” the court docs read, per the outlet.

Costner’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, wrote in the filing, “Christine’s counsel asked for a definition of ‘understood’ and Kevin’s counsel provided the dictionary meaning of the word ‘understood,’ to wit, ‘comprehended or perceive the intended meaning of words.'”

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2023/08/11/kevin-costners-estranged-wife-admits-she-may-not-have-understood-the-prenup-she-signed/

Kevin Costner’s estranged wife, Christine Baumgartner, is arguing that she may not have understood their prenuptial agreement when he signed it in 2004.

“Christine asserts she cannot admit or deny that she understood the Premarital Agreement because she (and apparently all of her attorneys) do not understand the word ‘understand,'” the court docs read, per the outlet.

Costner’s lawyer, Laura Wasser, wrote in the filing, “Christine’s counsel asked for a definition of ‘understood’ and Kevin’s counsel provided the dictionary meaning of the word ‘understood,’ to wit, ‘comprehended or perceive the intended meaning of words.'”

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.

lol, what career? Did she even finish college or is she a state school flunky? She had all the time in the world while the "help" raised the kids and kept the mansions in order. She should have gotten a few degrees in the last 20 years, to set her up for a career.

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.

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.