Michael Douglas’ ex-wife wants some of that “Wall Street 2″ money

wenn2030402

The tagline for the sequel to the 80′s blockbuster “Wall Street 2″ is “Money Never Sleeps.” Apparently, that’s true for the movie’s star, Michael Douglas’ money – someone is always trying to get more of it. This time, it’s Michael’s ex-wife, Diandra, who claims that their divorce settlement entitles her to a portion of any royalties or money he earns from the movie, slated for a September release.

Maybe greed isn’t so good after all.

Michael Douglas is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his ex-wife’s hands off of his “Wall Street 2″ millions.

Diandra Douglas quietly filed suit against her ex earlier this month, claiming she’s entitled to 50 percent of the up-front money and royalties from his upcoming film, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” The Post has learned.

Michael Douglas, 65, maintains that the sequel money is his — and that his 52-year-old ex has gotten enough of his cash.

The Douglases’ 2000 divorce case included sordid allegations that Michael was a sex addict who routinely cheated on his wife, and ended with Diandra getting a reported $45 million.

And earlier this month, Michael took a jab at Diandra as they sought leniency for their drug-dealing son, Cameron. In a letter to the judge, he coldly described his ex as “a young mother without any parenting skills handed down from her own parents.”

Michael is not happy to be back in court with her again.

“He doesn’t want her to be an albatross around his neck forever,” his lawyer, Marilyn Chinitz, told the judge presiding over their big-bucks battle last week.

Diandra’s side said her divorce deal provides that she gets half of any money Michael gets from any movies he did — including residuals, merchandising and ancillary rights — during their two decades as husband and wife.

That includes the original “Wall Street,” the 1987 classic that earned Michael an Oscar for his portrayal of cutthroat money man Gordon Gekko, whose famous line was “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” The sequel is slated to open in September, with the Hollywood legend reprising his Gekko role opposite Shia LaBeouf.

Diandra’s lawyer, Nancy Chemtob, said the divorce agreement contained a clause that said her client is entitled to money from any “spinoffs” of Douglas’ movies, and that includes “Wall Street 2.”

“It’s the same character, the same title, just years later,” Chemtob told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper.

It’s not clear how much Douglas is getting paid for the Oliver Stone-helmed sequel, Chemtob said.

Michael, who is now married to actress Catherine Zeta-Jones, wasn’t in court for the hearing — and Chinitz said Diandra and her lawsuit shouldn’t have been there either.

She said the ex-wife’s attempted hostile takeover of her client’s cash should be dismissed, both because it should be heard in California, where the couple divorced in 2000, and because it has no merit.

Sequels, Chinitz said, are not spinoffs, and Diandra has no right to any money from a sequel. “They’re not the same thing,” she said.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Cooper indicated that he thought there was a difference between a spinoff and a sequel as well, but said that he wouldn’t decide the issue until he determines whether he should keep the case or send it back to Santa Barbara.

Chemtob told the judge she filed the suit in New York because this is where both Douglases are currently living, and said there’s no agreement that says the case can be heard only in California.

[From NY Post]

Now, look – I think Douglas is king-sized jerk. But this is beyond ridiculous. The ex wife got $45 Million. They’ve been divorced 10 years. And she wants more? Are you kidding me? Honey, it’s time to go out and get a job and earn your own damn money. The kids are grown – dysfunctional though they are – so what exactly is her need for more of her ex-husband’s millions? I hope the judge calls her out on these blatant gold-digging tactics and says, “Enough’s enough.”

Michael Douglas and his ex-wife Diandra Douglas leave a Manhattan federal court after the sentencing of their son Cameron Douglas in New York April 20, 2010. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES - Tags: ENTERTAINMENT CRIME LAW)

Michael Douglas and his ex-wife Diandra Douglas leave a Manhattan federal court after the sentencing of their son Cameron Douglas in New York April 20, 2010. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES - Tags: ENTERTAINMENT CRIME LAW)

Header: Diandra on August 17, 2008. Credit: WENN.

Related stories

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

52 Responses to “Michael Douglas’ ex-wife wants some of that “Wall Street 2″ money”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. scotchy says:

    wait she needs more money, she got 45 million
    how can you blow through 45 million dollars in 10 years
    the ways money is wasted, makes me sad.

  2. Patrice says:

    “Are you kidding me? Honey, it’s time to go out and get a job and earn your own damn money”

    Thank you Celebitchy!!!! Finally another woman who agrees with me about vicious gold-digging entitled ex-wives!

    Just recently I heard about a story in my home state of MA (where alimony is FOR LIFE) in which an ex-husband paid his ex wife child support of around $1-2 thousand a month on top of alimony payments of. Once his youngest child turned 18, the monster sued him and the judge simply converted all the potential child support money into ALIMONY payments!!! So much for feminists wanting “equal rights as men in all areas” and all that BS. Why couldn’t girlfriend in that case (and Diandra Douglas’s) go out and work just like everybody else? What a joke. Makes me ashamed to be female.

  3. hstl1 says:

    I disagree. If “the divorce agreement contained a clause that said her client is entitled to money from any “spinoffs” of Douglas’ movies” and if a sequel is deemed a spinoff in a court of law, then she is within her rights to sue him. He should have had his army of lawyers doing their due diligence before he accepted the role.

  4. Persistent Cat says:

    No one said she needed the money, she’s just out to piss off her ex.

    Regardless, it’s unlikely that film will make any money.

  5. MaiGirl says:

    I agree with hstl1. Diandra can’t be lumped into the same category as some of the golddiggers we’ve seen lately. She was married to him for a long time, and dealt with his “sex addict” ways and the resultant pain and humiliation. She deserved the settlement she got; he was and is a very rich man, and considering his wealth, her settlement was fair.

    If a spinoff and sequel are deemed to be the same (and I think it’s fair to argue that it is), she should get some money, according to her settlement.

  6. jc126 says:

    She’s gotten enough already, in my opinion. She also had to know about his constant cheating over the decades – it was common knowledge to anyone who followed the tabs, after all – yet put up with it for some reason. Some $ reason, I mean.

  7. Lara says:

    “So much for feminists wanting “equal rights as men in all areas” and all that BS.”
    What does feminism has to with this case?! Equal rights are BS? Why?
    Please do not mistake the very valuable causes many feminists fought for with some scorned/ delusional/ golddigging women thinking they’re entitled to everything their ex has just because they’re were once married to them.
    Whatever humiliation she went through with Michael Douglas (and I believe there’s a lot) $45 Millions should be enough to soothe her hurt feelings.

  8. mln says:

    He should have had his lawyers check this out BEFORE he signed onto the movie and it probably didn’t help that he trashed her and had all of his friends trash her to the judge for being a bad mother when he by all acounts wasn’t a good father either.

  9. Patrice says:

    Lara: My point was about the case I talked about from my home state… I should have been clear about the fact that that woman in question had “women’s groups” backing her up. Equal rights aren’t at all BS, but where does entitlement to an ex-husbands money fit into it in stories like this? You have to admit that there are plenty of people who want it all ways. Just look at what self-described “feminist pioneer” Gloria Allred makes her living doing: defending mistresses and golddiggers and comletely excusing their behavior on every level. It’s all relevent. That’s all I was trying to say…

  10. Solveig says:

    I didn’t know that Michael Douglas was married to Courtney Love.
    Anyway, I agree with hstl1 (comment no. 3) and 45mln dollars sounds like crumbs considering today’s standard settlements.
    (I’d live from 3 to 10 wealthy lives with that amount of money, tho)

  11. lucy2 says:

    Hmm. Part of me says they’ve been divorced 10 years and she got plenty of money in the divorce, have a little pride, woman! But the other part of me thinks if he was foolish enough to agree to giving away future earnings on related material and knowing that still agreed to make the sequel, then she’s entitled to it.

  12. Rosanna says:

    “What does feminism has to with this case?! Equal rights are BS? Why?”

    Feminism definitely HAS to do with this BS because Diandra scored a big (undeserved) settlement because of the feminist BS.

    Second point, those aren’t equal rights. Those are “women deserve more money than men for giving sex in regular basis” rights.

    And third point, YES this DEFINITELY qualifies as bs in my book.

  13. oxa says:

    He said Dinadra was a young mother without any parenting skills handed down from her own parents.
    What about his dreadful parenting skills and inability to keep his organ in his pants?

  14. CB Rawks says:

    The movie will tank for sure.

  15. Jeri says:

    She probably wants to get back @ him for the jab he took @ her in their son’s case.

    They just had the one child, right?

  16. qb says:

    That was their divorce settlement. He agree to it.

  17. YT says:

    It was in the divorce settlement contract, so he owes her the money. Now the lawyers will get a hefty percentage while they fight it out.

  18. snowball says:

    A spinoff and sequel are two completely different things. I can’t believe there’s any ambiguity about that.

    Dictionary.com

    spinoff: any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product.

    sequel: a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.

    If they’d made a movie about Gordon Gekko’s secretary, THAT would have been a spinoff.

    Diandra’s a money-grubber looking for something she isn’t entitled to. Let’s introduce her to Heather Mills.

  19. Kazoo81 says:

    maybe he shouldn’t have fucked everyone (including her friends) while they were married. then she wouldn’t be so bitter & still want his money.

  20. Bella Mosley says:

    He signed a contract and he should honor it. Maybe he should have stipulated that be null and void after the children were grown or after so many years, but it appears he didn’t. If the production company agrees to pay him X amount of dollars and does not, he would be suing them – this is no different.
    I think the 50/50 amt is ridiculous considering she does not of the work, but again – he signed it so he agreed to the terms.
    As far as the film not making any money – that isn’t the issue. The amount he earns is the issue and he will for sure be paid an lump some amount and then possible a percentage.

  21. Patrice says:

    Rosanna: Thank you!!!

  22. The Truth Fairy says:

    @Snowball: You rock!!

  23. Maddie says:

    This is the out come from years and years of men leaving their families for greener pastures and not paying child support at all back in the day (40′s till the late 70′s mid 80′s) men were allowed to just walk away and to hell with the kids and ex wives that were left in poverty.

    Should she get the money from the new Wall Street movie? If it is in the divorce papers, than pay up, that is what Michael Douglas signed off on period.

    Most people forget that women give up their earning potential when they get married and it is agreed upon that she will stay home and raise the family, only in yrs to come has a husband whose looking over the fence at the 22 yr old, and wanting to stiff his wife in a settlement.

    Yes there are some gold diggers out there, who want it all, but a soon to be ex-wife should not have to live in a different lifestyle, with the kids because daddy wants to keep the new girlfriend.

    With the Douglas, this is not the case, but people don’t forget where all the women right groups started from. and yes they have strayed from the path in my opinion.

  24. benny says:

    I see I’m in the minority, but I think the ex is entitled to half of the proceeds of anything that was a result of their marriage. If Wall Street 2 makes any money, it is because of the success of Wall Street, which was a product of their marriage.

    I don’t get why people think exes aren’t entitled to any money because THEY didn’t earn it. Um . . . yeah, they earned it by taking care of the home and children, freeing up time for the bread winner to make some money.

    We always *talk* about stay-at-home moms (or dads) being every bit as important as the working parent. So was that all bullshit?

    I don’t like pre-nups because I think state laws that say (for the most part anyway) that the spouses split the earnings during the course of the marriage 50/50 are correct. That’s how it should be.

  25. MightyMouse says:

    Patrice, I completely agree with you.

  26. Lauren says:

    Feminism is dead, especially in this economy! Michael cheated on Diandra throughout their marriage,and was an absent father to their son, whom is now in jail. Maddie: I agree with everything you said, well done.

  27. Persistent Cat says:

    He probably never thought he’d be so hard up that he’d have to do Wall Street 2: Electric Boogaloo.

  28. jane16 says:

    Just looked up “spinoff” on my online dictionary:

    a byproduct or incidental result of a larger project : the commercial spin-off from defense research.
    • a product marketed by its association with a popular television program, movie, personality, etc.

  29. jane16 says:

    Agree with Benny. Whatever this woman got/gets, she earned. He was horrible to her.

  30. jc126 says:

    He was horrible to her, but she put up with it for what, 15 or more years? She must’ve enjoyed the rich lifestyle. And she already got $45M from the marriage. I do not think she deserves a penny from his salary for this movie – she didn’t write it, or otherwise contribute to it, did she? I would reserve judgment on whether that interpretation of their divorce decree is accurate, too. If it is, it’s still ridiculous.

  31. Tia C says:

    Interesting debate! I agree with lucy2. On the one hand, I don’t think I would personally do what ex-Mrs. Douglas is doing, but on the other, if it was part of their agreement, then she has every right.

    As for the debate about spinoff v. sequel – it depends what the actual wording was in the divorce agreement. It was just her lawyer who stated that she was entitled to money from “spinoffs,” but the actual wording in the divorce agreement may (one hopes) be more specific than that and in fact include sequels. I would think any lawyer worth their salt would make damn sure of that.

  32. OC lady says:

    I think Diandra is still pissed about the way Douglas treated her and their son. So, this sounds like another F-U to him. It’s probably NOT about the money at all, it’s personal. In any case, I think she should get over it . . . but, hey, that’s just me. I’m more the forgive and forget type–not the hold the grudge forever person.

  33. cb2 says:

    1) The agreement was made in CA which is a community property state. 50/50 is therefore not unusual. If the additional royalties are limited to spinoffs only then that limits what she could claim in the future.

    2) Wall Street is marketed as a sequel specifically as “Wall Street 2.”

  34. Feebee says:

    A spinoff and sequel are clearly different. That aside he’s an idiot for agreeing to the ambigious wording regarding future earnings, the law’s an ass for allowing it to be okay especially after 10 years – there should be a limit and she’s just being a class A bitch whether it’s because she’s out of money or just to piss him off, she’s out of order on this request.

  35. MaiGirl says:

    Word, Maddie.

  36. Catherine says:

    If he agreed to it, then he should pay up. It’s not like he was the perfect husband so she deserves what he agreed to.

  37. Ashley says:

    When you hear the stories about Diandra this isn’t very surprising. I get it, she had a horrible marriage and he cheated blah, blah, blah, but that doesn’t entitle her to money for life. She got her pound of flesh now she needs to move it along.

    Besides from all other accounts she is a bitch like no other and a golddigger from the start. I’m not saying it was right for him to cheat on her because she’s a vile golddigger, but she ain’t no saint.

  38. Hautie says:

    If you want to talk about someone who received a huge chunk of an ex-husband’s past and future income, look at Harrison Ford’s ex wife. She earns millions a year off his past work.

    So maybe Diandra is just trying to rework her own earning potential from her ex’s library of work.

    Because every movie done through that marriage is earning Diandra money to this day.

    From VHS and DVD sales to airing on the ole TV. She is getting paid. So Diandra has received more than 45 million. She is earning big $$$ every year from 50 percent of the residuals.

    I suspect the wording is correct. That Michael Douglass had a lawyer that knew there was a difference between spinoff and sequel.

    Had any other character but Gekko, turned into a movie, then she would get half. Because that is a spinoff. But a movie based on the same character of Gekko, is a sequel.

    It is all in the wording with divorce law and Douglass knew that. And her lawyer at the time did not catch it.

    Plus I suspect it irks Douglass how much money she is getting of his residuals and he is not about to let her get any more.

  39. Mistral says:

    I’m pretty sure Douglas’s ex wife did not give up $45 million worth of earning potential. She was never a Meryl Streep talent (if she was an aspiring or sometimes-working “actress”) or a face/body/personality like an Angelina Jolie. If she was ever a “model”, she never had the potential to be a “supermodel”. So, I think this lazy woman should go and get a job. Most of the rest of us—with really good educations and respectable jobs—are struggling. I don’t sympathize with her in the least. I only think women should get money for their kids, or half of what they owned together while married. Then, see you!

  40. Lizzard says:

    As much as it pains me to say this; if it was in the divorce agreement that she is entited to that money, then she should get it. However, she shouldn’t have to sue already to get it, she shouldn’t see a penny of the money until this movie comes out. If it sucks and doesn’t do well at the box office, she should only be entited to a portion. This is only if a “spinoff” and “sequel” are considered the same thing though. I personally think they are two different things.

  41. Sincerity says:

    @ Bella Mosley — Your assessment makes sense to me. His ex-wife’s alleged character is not the issue here. Michael Douglas signed the divorce agreement and “left the back door open” so to say for his ex-wife to be paid out of his future earnings. He probably did so to reduce the amount of actual cash he had to pay her upfront and to expedite the finalization of their divorce. There’s no point in crying “foul” now. It’s simply up to the courts to decide whether or not Diandra’s claims have merit. If the movie bombs, there may not be that much to fight over, anyway.

  42. lio says:

    If i was a multimillionnaire and my only son was in jail for drug dealing, i would have others priorities than to sue my ex-husband (of 10 years!) for even more money. Like benny said, “exes earned money by taking care of the home and children”. In her case, she earned nothing, she souldn’t be entitled to anything

  43. Kali says:

    Some of the arguments about this might be valid if we were talking about a deadbeat dad who barely paid child support. We’re talking about a man who already paid $45 million. That’s kind of money is a huge lotto jackpot. There has to be some measure of reasonableness that comes into this. The ex-wife shouldn’t get more money. I hope the courts rule in Michael Douglas’ favour.

  44. Lway says:

    Can you say Gold-digger?

  45. Missy says:

    Michael Douglas and Diandra met at a party during Jimmy Carter’s inauguration. She was a Georgetown University student, and he and Jack Nickolson had just roared into town as part of a road trip they were taking after filming Who Flew over a Cukoo’s Nest. It was a big story here – sexy actor meets young student. She didn’t even know who he was.
    From stories at the time, she was no “other side of the track” babe. Her father was a diplomat and she was cultured, educated and sophisticated for her age.
    Look at her pictures from then. She was stunning and beautiful. But I remember reading stories of her in LA after they married – women still coming up to their table and throwing themselves at Michael.
    I also remember an interview with her saying it was just her and Cameron lots of times when MD was out filming.
    She may have been a young mother, but, IMHO, he was a first class jerk to say what he did at his son’s trial. A son needs a strong male figure, a father. Apparently, and even by his own admission, he was not.
    But I digress. They are going to be arguing over the divorce decree language for a long time. I think it is just personal. She probably just wants to annoy him. Read about their Montecito home – she got that in the divorce settlement and then went on to put in on the market recently for eight figures, I believe. I don’t think she is hurting.

  46. JustBe says:

    Feminism is not dead (check out feministing.com if you need to know why it is still very relevant today) and it has nothing to do protecting ‘gold diggers’. There are still many very significant issues of inequality between the sexes and gender discrimination that is pervasive in American culture and more throughout the world.

    Benny and Maddie made very good points and thanks Missy for providing some historical background.
    I have to side with the minority here mostly because of what was originally agreed to in the contract, but also because I think I can empathize with DD’s standpoint. I don’t think that I personally would continue the judicial and emotional battles with MD for retribution for past wrongs, but I can understand why she might.

    These same arguments (gold digging, get a job) seem to crop up whenever we here about divorce and/or child support settlements of the rich and famous. She shouldn’t be asking/getting that amount of money, she didn’t do any work to deserve the payoff, etc., etc.
    Just because I (and my spouse) have to leave our kids in school/day care daily to earn a living, why should I begrudge another who may be luckier than I am.
    Twenty years is a long time to try to build a home with another adult, especially if he/she has no respect for the home and the level of effort to maintain it. Maybe she should have left a long time ago, to stave off the pain and bitterness that follows now, but revenge may still seem sweet enough to her to keep it going. I’m not saying she’s a good person or whether MD is, just that she’s taking her chance, now that she has some level of power, to get back at him for what was said/done.
    I’m not saying it’s right, but I get why.

  47. The Bobster says:

    Using her logic, she owes him about 3000 BJ’s.

  48. Nik says:

    I know people tend to use spin-off and sequel interchangeably. But just like the words idiot and moron, there is a major difference between the two.
    MD’s upcoming movie is a sequel to the first. A spin-off would be if one of the supporting charachters were moved into the lead role of a new movie, while still having some crossover of the original movie. “Like Frasier, is a spin-off of Cheers”. A sequel is a continuation of the original. And most if not all of the time, it will have the name of the original movie in the title. “Like Wall Street, is not Wall Street 2″ Since he was the leading character in Wall Street, he can’t have a spin-off. It falls into the sequel catagory.
    I am sure his lawyers did their due dilegence.

    I don’t think she should be entitled to money from a sequel. He agreed to pay for a spin-off. And I would bet my dollar, that he will never do a spin-off to anything just to keep her out of his pockets.

  49. Mistral says:

    So that’s her story, is it? He plucked her out of the university, did he? She was a child of privilege, was she? Well, if she had truly been some sort of driven intellectual, she would have completed her studies and had a job on her own in a field that requires a brain. Look at the Governator’s wife. Married to an extremely successful and rich movie star and a Kennedy and all—you don’t get more privileged than that—but she still chose to work and have a career outside of Arnie/the Kennedys. Don’ worry, I’m not worrying myself too much over the fact that she is lucky enough to have hit a huge payday with her divorce. However, criticizing a greedy person isn’t begrudging them their luck. GREED is NEVER good. Greed is what has caused all of our economic and environmental problems. So, I hope she gets nothing out of this.

  50. Mrs Carter (Widow) says:

    “IT WAS HORRIBLE FOR CASSANDRA TO MARRY A HUSBAND AND HAVE A CHILD AND NOT HAVE HIM CHEAT ON HER ONCE OR TWICE OR THREE TIMES: BUT CONTINUALLY, FOR YEARS (17?)

    THEN: SHE CATCHES HIME ‘IN THE VERY ACT OF SEX’ WITH “HER BEST FRIEND.” JUST SEE HOW YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR BEST FRIEND GETTING ****** BY YOUR HUSBAND IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE!!!!!!!”

    SOME HAVE HINTED THAT MS GOLDIE HAWN IS THE ‘BEST FRIEND’. ONLY HER AND CASSANDRA AND MICHAEL AND THE HOTEL STAFF KNOW FOR SURE.”

  51. Mrs Carter (Widow) says:

    “EXCUSE, ME I MEANT ‘DIANDRA’ NOT CASSANDRA. THANK YOU.”

  52. Your article has inspired me. It’s interesting, thoughtful, compelling and well-written. You are a very talented writer with great skills and original thoughts. Your viewpoints match mine in many ways.