Mel B ordered to pay $40k a month in spousal support to abusive ex

wenn23096489-1024x970
We heard late last month that Mel B was contesting the ridiculous amount of spousal support which her husband of ten years, Stephen Belafonte, was requesting. TMZ did not provide a specific total, but the individual monthly amounts – including $11k for housing, $4k for food, $2k for clothing and $750 for phone bills added up to over $18,000. Would you be surprised to learn that the actual amount awarded to Stephen was over double that? I was. I guess the fact that Stephen is an abusive POS did not factor into the judge’s decision and that it all about the numbers. Mel reportedly makes over $250k a year month, I would assume for her work as a judge on America’s Got Talent. Also, Mel was ordered to pay Stephen’s legal fees which currently total $140k. Holy crap. The good news is that this is a temporary agreement.

Stephen Belafonte’s request for emergency spousal support was granted by a judge who agrees … he needs help paying for food, housing and his phone, among other things. It could have been worse for Mel. According to docs, she could have been forced to pay $15k more per month — based on income and expenses — but the judge cut her a break.

The order also includes a one-time payment of $140,000 for Stephen’s legal fees. So, Mel will have to cut a check for that, plus $40k monthly, until both sides work out their final divorce settlement.

As we reported … Mel argued last month that Stephen’s financial requests were ridiculous and he needed to get a job. Looks like he can afford to be picky about work … for a while at least.

[From TMZ]

Well judges in California can be no-nonsense about divorce and custody agreements while being completely lax about celebrity crime. This is probably a very straightforward dollar amount based on all the numbers and TMZ is even saying that it’s less than Stephen might be entitled to. I don’t know if I trust them lately, but they do know legal details in most cases. I just hope that Mel is ultimately granted a permanent restraining order against Stephen and that the final amount she’s ordered to pay is less than this.

FFN_RIJ_ANGRY_BIRDS_050716_52047435-701x1024

Photos credit: FameFlynet, WENN and Getty

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

30 Responses to “Mel B ordered to pay $40k a month in spousal support to abusive ex”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lenn says:

    Can someone fill me in on how this works? Why is she required to do this? Why does het not have to provide for himself?

    • Nicole says:

      No prenup (which stupid) and he’s entitled to spousal support essentially. Basically when you’re getting a divorce the one that makes the most money has to pay to upkeep the lifestyle they shared together. Had they already had a prenup it would be cut and dry and the divorce would be quicker. Same thing is happening with Mary J.
      It’s why you should have a prenup. Even people without this type of money

      • ELX says:

        And they were married for ten years, which is the magic number in Cali-long term marriage will get you spousal support if you are not the breadwinner.

      • Sami says:

        A prenup is a good starting point but to be honest I would not be surprised if a judge were to find a way to void it. Do you see what the court did here? They actually gave him MORE support than he even asked for despite everything. You hear people constantly complaining that the courts are sexist against men in custodial matters. The fact is that the courts use an extremely heavy hand in spousal support and child support claims when the wealthier spouse is female. Its almost as though she were being punished for her success. Like some kind of wealth redistribution to readress the grave offence that the wife was doing better than the man.

        There are lots of examples but consider Halle Berrys versus Jeremy Renners career prospects. Factor in Hollywoods pay gap and consequences of a black actress aging versus a white guy. Remember that Jeremy has a second extremely lucrative stream of income from real estate. Both had one kid. Now think about the orders that were given in either case. There are dozens of examples of this gender based wealth redistribution thing. I honestly think the court would have accepted any reason to void the prenup and just done their own thing anyway.

      • Nicole says:

        The court cannot void the prenup unless there is some sort of fraud involved. These A-listers have teams of lawyers that comb over every single detail for prenups to make them ironclad. Sure they can be challenged but 99% of the time they stand. Mel was stupid here in regards to her money. I’ve never seen courts just void prenups because the woman was in power. If you have a prenup and a good lawyer it will stick. Pretty sure Halle Barry wasn’t married to the baby daddy which was the issue so it was CS not spousal. Same with Renner…not being married is a sticking point here and again its CS which is not the same as what is happening here.

    • trollontheloose says:

      often they argue that they are use to to a lifestyle and it’s too depressing not to being able to spend like they are used to. In on case here in N.Y the spouse said she got depressed and suicidal when her husbands cut her off the $20.000 per month gift. And she won! She got the $20.000 plus $17.000 plus stays in his healthcare plan.

    • Brunswickstoval says:

      Yes he would have to earn his own money but essentially he could not earn enough to live the way he used to. So she has to pay him so he can continue to live that way

      I was a family lawyer but not in the US so don’t know how it works there. Usually one spouse would have to support another but not to the same level as when they were married unless you had primary custody of the children. Divorce necessarily means a lower standard of living as 2 households are supported on the same income.

      And $250k is not a massive amount of money.

  2. trollontheloose says:

    i still find it incredible that an allege victim of abuse has to pay her ex some money so he still can live lavishly on her sweat. it is unfair. Just because she got him used to to luxury doesn’t make it ok. Especially if he “allegedly” spent her money for his side piece. I read in another site that the judge blasted them for living well beyond their meanings. Mel should have put the break early on when there was already abuse. At the very least if she didn’t have the strength maybe tighten her purse so she can save money for her kids and not on this bald deadbeat emoji loser.

    • Seraphina says:

      Exactly! And why, why, why would a judge order a victim to stay in contact with her abuser. I’m not an attorney but this is the ultimate slap in the face.

      • swak says:

        She would not necessarily need to stay in contact with him. When I divorced there were loans out there that were both our responsibility. I was advised to set up a separate account where the money could be deposited and automatically pay the loans. There would be no reason to contact each other as long as the money is put in the account on time each month.

    • Nicole says:

      Because none of the accusations have been proven in court. The judge has done what they can via restraining order. But there’s nothing else they can do until the case is finished. They will bring the accusations to court and everything will be on record. This is temporary and if she wanted to there’s recourse once the case plays out in court. Unfortunately that’s how the system works.

    • ELX says:

      Fault doesn’t come into it. I you want the ability to divorce effectively, you give up financial and custodial revenge, that’s no fault means, essentially. She has claimed abuse –that has not yet been proven and is a separate issue. They did not have a prenup, the marriage was long-term under California law, she is the breadwinner and he gets his statutory slice of the pie. His rights in this matter are not diminished because he’s a man, cheated or abused her. If he is criminally guilty of abuse, that will be adjudicated in due course or dealt with as part of the final negotiated settlement.

    • K says:

      The documents apparently state quite specifically that the judge is reserving the right to offset any money she pays her ex against his share of the marital home and/or any other assets, if abuse is proven. So not only would his payouts stop – she’d be refunded what she’d paid already in the form of a bigger share of assets such as a joint home. Right now, nothing is proven because no evidence has been heard in a contested way; the restraining order was temporary. My understanding is that if sufficiently serious abuse is proven, then she gets the money back via his share of marital assets being cut into instead. Same with legal fees.

      Until they’ve heard all the evidence from both sides and come to some sort of a conclusion, I think they have to treat him as they would any long term spouse divorcing under CA law, because there’s not been any finding of fact against him. That seems reasonable, really – there must be an awful lot of people who allege abuse to avoid shelling out, and as the richer party could also prevent good quality legal representation this way it could be unjust in all sorts of directions.

      With any luck, given his history and her apparently having evidence coming out of her ears, she’ll be shot of him and never have to pay another cent, plus get this support returned to her. But my understanding is that she has to go through the legal steps first.

    • OriginallyBlue says:

      It’s horrible. I remember a case a couple years back where the husband raped his wife. She got enough evidence to prove it and he was convicted and is in prison, but she still has to pay him support. So she has to put money in an account for him and he will have money once he gets out. They also have children, so it’s just a mess.

  3. Jamie42 says:

    Has she brought charges or gotten a judgment against him as an abuser? If there is no paper trail or conviction of that, I can unfortunately understand why the judge would not take it into consideration.
    Whatever the status of the abuse claim, I don’t like the idea that he, as an able-bodied male who doesn’t even “keep house,” is entitled to that kind of money.

  4. Loopy says:

    If she makes aout $250k a year, how on earth is she suppose to pay him $40k monthly?

  5. PettyRiperton says:

    Sick! An abuse victim has to pay her abuser for the rest of his life

  6. Veronica says:

    Abusers generally know how to work the system, and this is an excellent example how. She may not have to deal with him interpersonally anymore, but he has made certain that his presence is felt in her life permanently every time she sees that $40K come out of her account.

    • ELX says:

      This temporary order is not about him working the system–as a long-term spouse he has certain entitlements like it or not. How this works out in the final property settlement and/or criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter.

  7. poorlittlerichgirl says:

    I absolutely HATE that she has to pay spousal support to him especially in that insane amount. However, she was the breadwinner and legally, he is entitled to support. If the roles were reversed he would have to pay support as well even if she had done all of the horrible things that he did during their marriage. That’s just the way it works. It is very unfair and I feel so badly for her. She must be going through so much emotional torment. I hope that, in the end she gets peace from all of this.

  8. puravidacostarica says:

    And then there’s Eddie Cibrian:

    {hands rubbing together} Just 3 years, 9 months, 2 days….and counting.

  9. sunshine gold says:

    So gross. This guy is the scum of the earth.