Ryan Sweeting wants Kaley Cuoco to give him spousal support: fair or unfair?


It hasn’t even been a month since Kaley Cuoco announced her split from Ryan Sweeting, her husband of only 21 months! They said it wouldn’t last… and they were right. Kaley announced her split on September 26th, a Friday. For a few days, everyone was like “Girl, we’re praying you got a good prenup!” And as it turns out, she did make Ryan sign a prenup just before they married on New Year’s Eve 2013. Initially, the reports about the prenup seemed to indicate that Kaley and Ryan would walk away with their own assets, the same as they had pre-marriage, which basically meant that Kaley would keep the house and everything else, because Ryan came into the marriage with next to nothing. But… now Ryan has filed his own divorce paperwork and K-Fed’s gotta K-Fed. He’s requesting that Kaley pay his lawyers’ fees, plus he’s asking for spousal support.

Ryan Sweeting has responded to Kaley Cuoco’s divorce filing. E! News obtained the court documents filed by the tennis player on Oct. 15 in Los Angeles Superior Court, and there were some notable points found in the legal document. Like Cuoco’s original filing on Sept 25, Ryan cites ever-so-popular “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split. However, Sweeting states Sept. 25 (the day of Kaley’s filing) as the date of separation, as opposed to Sept. 3, which was what Cuoco stated in her filing.

The documents also show that the actress’ ex is asking for spousal support and requesting to terminate the court’s ability to award support to Kaley. In her papers, Kaley stated spousal support was payable and terminable as set forth from the couple’s prenuptial agreement, which they signed on Nov. 20, 2013. Ryan is also asking Kaley to pay for his attorney’s fees, something The Big Bang Theory star listed would be paid by both parties, per their prenup.

[From E! News]

Is there a divorce lawyer in the house? Because I think I know what this means, but I’d still like it explained in greater detail. I think they’re saying that Ryan and Kaley agreed to some loose spousal support terms in their prenup and it would be up to Ryan to request support if he so chooses. And he does choose. So, Kaley won’t be surprised that he’s asking for support, although she’s hoping the court determines that she won’t have to pay her K-Fed too much, and there would be a preapproved end-date for said support? Like, she’ll pay spousal support for three years max, something like that? That’s how I understand it. Anyway, this just goes to show you ladies: sometimes stupid decisions we make about love can end up costing us big time. Protect your assets, girls.


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

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

134 Responses to “Ryan Sweeting wants Kaley Cuoco to give him spousal support: fair or unfair?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lindy79 says:

    Why should she? He didn’t contribute anything to the short marriage?
    Like her or not, she made it without his help and if he’s going against what they agreed then please, have a seat.

    This shit is gonna get messy

    • Cheryl says:

      Does she want this over? Does she want her dirty laundry aired in public?

      This is the tax on marrying a dude you barely know.

      • lisa says:

        ^^^ this

      • ctkat1 says:

        She makes so much money, it would be totally worth it for her to pay him (likely in a lump sum rather than monthly support) than to have him going to the tabloids about her.

      • MET says:

        I don’t think she really cares about dirty laundry or at least I’d like to think that because I want her to fight hard! Seriously what a dirtbag (and I’d think the same thing if the genders were reversed). You were married for less than 2 years and your young – get your butt out there and get a job!!!

  2. Mimz says:

    Well, at least she did get a prenup.
    And I still think it’s lame, especially when there are no kids, and both are full grown, able adults, to ask for spousal support. Regardless if it’s a man or a woman.
    Just get on with your life and forget the other person. Isn’t that what divorce is supposed to be about?

    • MG says:

      She married him knowing he had nothing and probably made nothing during the marriage, so I don’t think it’s fair that he just gets kicked to the curb. She should support him for a little while until he gets on his feet. But, he is a capable adult, so the time should be limited.

      • kcarp says:

        If he was a woman no one would think much about her asking for support for a certain time period.

      • Mimz says:

        @Kcarp This is why I stated that I think it’s lame “Regardless if it’s a man or a woman”. Some of us feel that way, if you read more on the comment thread.

      • Green Girl says:

        This is kind of where I am with it. Did he work at all during the marriage? If he stopped working to be with her, then I can’t exactly think it’s wrong to ask for spousal support while he gets back on his feet, finds a place to live and gets a job. However, it shouldn’t be millions and millions of dollars, and it shouldn’t be for years and years. In that situation, is it possible for one ex to offer the other ex a lump sum?

      • Colleen says:

        @kcarp: I would.

        It wasn’t a long-term marriage and both parties are able to make a living. This isn’t a situation wherein one party gave up a considerable portion of their career in order to support the other’s and take care of any children and now they need time to get on their feet. I’m with Mimz on this one.

      • Kitten says:

        I agree with Mimz, Green Girl, and Colleen.

        It just makes him look kind of pathetic TBH.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think they’ve been married long enough for me to believe he deserves it.

      • Katie says:

        How many women get alimony but didn’t contribute anything during the marriage? Why is this any different?

      • FLORC says:

        Yes ladies!
        By appearances they married quickly and divorced quickly. Did he uproot his life for her? Not take oportunities because of their relationship? Did she request a certain appearance of him? Or did they just fizzle out and he got comfy living the lifestyle she could give him?
        No kids, minimal financial sacrifice, and short timespan. Financial support if given should be minimal and short. No longer than the length of the relationship.

      • lucy2 says:

        But there’s no reason he wasn’t on his feet during the marriage. As others have said, unless he can prove being with her somehow made his own career take a back seat, I don’t see any reason for him to get anything more than whatever is agreed upon in the prenup. If anything, he probably had no living expenses while they were together, so if he were earning anything, he should have been able to save it.

    • Marrrrria says:

      Honestly it’s not like he (or a woman) couldn’t make money during a marriage like they did beforehand. It’s a different situation if one was to be held back by children or other aspects but I doubt she said he can’t contribute to the pot. He had a lifestyle before their marriage and I don’t think she gained anything by this wedlock. Why not simply return to his old lifestyle? Because some people (regardless of gender) are greedy shits, that’s why.
      I wouldn’t ask for support if I had no reason to (children, etc.) and I wouldn’t accept paying support for someone I don’t feel deserves my money.

    • Wren33 says:

      I disagree with being against spousal support on principle. Really, during a marriage, all money and careers are essentially joint efforts. If I have a great paying job, and move so my husband can make more, I have sacrificed earning potential. If we have kids and I cut back some hours and sacrifice a promotion, I am also lessening earning potential. If my husband quits his job so we can move for my job, and then we get divorced, it is not like there is often an equivalent job he could just pick up right off the bat.

      So spousal support makes a lot of sense to me, but it obviously has to be limited based on the length of the marriage.

      • Pandy says:

        I agree Wren33 – spousal support is necessary for the reasons you list. Not sure if KFed Jr qualifies for this though. I’m betting he doesn’t. She has made reference to him being injured and unable to continue with his tennis career …. he’s looking for a payout. For 21 months and no kids, he should get 21 months of an apartment paid and car payments. Pay his lawyer. Then kick him to the curb.

      • ctkat1 says:

        Totally agree. I have no idea if he worked or tried to work during their marriage, and what his job skills are outside of being a tennis player, but he’s unlikely to be able to walk into a new career at this point without some education or training.

    • Stephanie says:


  3. Murphy says:

    I think it would be fair if the support was for like 1-2 years, along with a small lump sum settlement. Lawyers fees are ok since she technically filed first. Anything more than that is pushing your luck.

    • V4Real says:

      She was blinded by love. It’s pretty clear he was in it for the money. They don’t have kids but he wants spousal support. I guess this is another way equality comes in to play. But this time it is beneficial for the man.

      I think she got married too soon after she broke up with her beard….I mean Cavill.

    • jwoolman says:

      I think it’s fairly common for the richer party to pay lawyer’s fees. That allows both parties to hire equivalent lawyers, leveling the playing field. Otherwise the vastly richer one could run all over the poorer one.

  4. Loulou says:

    Maybe this is totally societally ingrained sexist thinking that I need to grow out of, but there’s something about a healthy, able man asking his more successful ex for support that makes me cringe.

    • Nicolette says:

      Me too. Put your big boy pants on and go out and work.

      • Jonathan says:

        Uh, grown women ask for spousal support all the time. But they can ask their more successful spouse for support? Does not compute.

      • Saphana says:

        would you say the same thing to a woman?

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I’d say the same thing to a woman if the situations were the same or similar. The marriage lasted less than 2 years. He didn’t “give up his career” to be with her. He didn’t contribute to her success. They have a prenup. He’s entitled to whatever the prenup gives him, nothing more. If the prenup gives him spousal support, then have at it. if it doesn’t, he shouldn’t get it.

      • Kitten says:

        …everything Paranormalgirl said. The only difference is that if we were talking about a woman, men and women alike would be accusing her of being a “gold digger” who only married for money and nobody would be challenging those comments. But he has a d*ck so that never comes into question.

      • Pandy says:

        Does this make him a golddicker?? lol.

      • Kitten says:


      • V4Real says:

        “The only difference is that if we were talking about a woman, men and women alike would be accusing her of being a “gold digger” who only married for money and nobody would be challenging those comments.”

        That’s pretty much what I said about him up-thread. He was clearly in it for the money.

      • Timbuktu says:

        Grown women ask for support all the time, and get slammed for it by men all the time, even when marriage lasts years, women actually give something up and raise children. I know of very few divorced men who do not bad mouth their exes for being greedy.
        But as soon as a man does it, hey, he’s untouchable? Nope, doesn’t work that way.

      • FLORC says:

        Maybe he’s just really bitter and really hurt it’s over? Trying to hit her where it counts aka Wallet. I have a hard time believing it’s just money.

    • Wilma says:

      I think it’s awful for a grown man to do this, but in this day and age I also think a woman should not apply for spousal support when there are no children involved. I get why it used to be a thing, but nowadays you really need to make sure you can stand on your own two feet as an adult. Spousal support should become obsolete in the years to come.

      • sb says:

        I completely agree! My brother is going through a divorce, no kids, his now ex has a masters degree and turned down a 60,000 a year job in hopes to get spousal support! His attorney told her she won’t see a dime unless she gets a job, she’s behaving like a lazy, entitled turd.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        I gave up my career so my husband could follow his dream; we have no children. I also have heart problems and can no longer work.

        You can bet the farm that if we split I would expect some sort of support after everything I lost so that he could excel. We were a team and he would NOT have gotten where he is today otherwise.

    • Lindy79 says:

      Honestly, I think it’s the worker bee mentality in me that would hate it if it was a woman too. May parents always instilled in me, my dad in particular, never depend fully financially on anyone, or at least make sure you are equal on everything and have equal rights and access to everything. He instilled in me that I should always have my own independence.

      I have no issue with people who took a back seat to support a spouses career asking for support after years, and then obviously if children are involved but if you’re both young, were only married for a short time, what exactly makes you think you’re entitled to anything?

      • Esmom says:

        Yes, I agree with everything you’ve said. My husband’s friend was married for a fairly short while to a woman who immediately quit her job after they got married. They had no kids and her life seemed to revolve around going to lunch and decorating their apartment. She then asked for spousal support during the divorce, citing “taking care of the dogs” as her main rationale. It was pretty astounding that she has no desire to find employment. It’s a mentality that’s hard to relate to.

      • Lindy79 says:

        I’d be frankly embarrassed to put “taking care of the dogs” down on a legal document as justification.
        Unless her quitting her job was as a concrete requirement to support his career, or to stay at home with the kids in which case maintenance would be due, how can anyone justify asking for money when you contributed pretty much nothing financially towards the marriage?

        We have a friend like that, got married pretty recently (whole big mess of a relationship), he’s basically bankrolled the entire relationship and he isn’t on a massive salary or anything, they have no kids and were long distance for 2 years then randomly got engaged then married abroad. They’re back now and she isn’t working yet making demands on where they buy a house, and want a big wedding back here (he blew the last of his savings on flying out to her and the honeymoon, which she contributed pretty much nothing to as far as we’re aware). He’s been asking us for advice, we saved like lunatics for our wedding and honeymoon and are currently saving for a house deposit.. I just couldn’t do that to Mr Lindy to be honest, we’re both grafters and I couldn’t in all good conscience, sit at home for no good reason while he works like a dog.

      • Esmom says:

        I hear you on wanting/needing to contribute financially. I quit work for a little while when both my kids were under 2 years old but as time went on I felt guiltier and guiltier for not contributing any money, as much as my husband reassured me that we were fine. As time went on and now that my kids are older, I realize I really do need to work to maintain my sanity and my identity separate from mom and wife. And the added money is really nice.

      • Cheryl says:

        Okay, but this guy is a tennis pro/gigolo from a rich family not an upstanding salt of the earth, working class type.

        So we have to get out of the mindset of people who’ve worked hard since the day they were allowed to get a paper route and get into the mindset of an entitled douche bag who married a vapid starlet with a lot of money.

        That dude is going to get paid. He’s been working on getting around that pre-nup since he signed it, I am betting.

        She spent the entire marriage clogging social media with pictures of him carrying around her dogs. He may think he deserves the money for sticking his dick in boring for 21 months.

        She married a stranger. This is what happens.

    • bread says:

      If one person of the couple had given up their job/career at the start of the marriage to support the other’s career/keep the household/bring up children for many years, then I think it’s fair to ask for spousal support after a divorce – at least for a year or two until they’ve gotten back into the work place.

      But asking for it with no children and after only 21 months of marriage? Please. That’s ridiculous, whether you’re male or female.

      • Esmom says:

        Right, and her career was already solid so it’s not like he sacrificed so she could establish herself. It is ridiculous.

      • Neah23 says:

        Spousal support has nothing yo do with children. You don’t get it because you have kids.

      • megs283 says:

        Right. I could see asking for it if he quit his job to accompany her while she was filming in some far-off location…but…that didn’t happen.

      • Loulou says:

        @Bread – I’m totally with you.

    • Samtha says:

      I think it’s fine if you’ve been married a long while, because then assets begin to blend and your career decisions have been impacted by various facets of your relationship.

      But if you haven’t even been married two years…it does strike me as a little off. If he hadn’t been dealing with an injury, he could possibly claim that he put aside his tennis career for her, which impacts his ability to support himself. But he DID have an injury, so that’s not gonna fly. He wouldn’t have been playing anyway.

    • meme says:

      So it’s OK for woman to demand spousal support but not men? That’s BS and sexist

      • Neah23 says:


      • Saphana says:

        many women dont see men who make less than their wives as men.

      • Loulou says:

        @Meme when I think of the point of spousal support, I think in terms that someone gave up something during the marriage and now needs help getting back on their feet. Most of the real examples of that I’ve seen in life have been woman who took care of the children and weren’t working for years.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        What’s BS is ANY spouse who asks for spousal support after a 21 month marriage during which said spouse contributed nothing and signed a prenup agreement. I can think of several men who receive and deserve spousal support (or who do not receive but deserve spousal support). And I can think of women who get it who really don’t need or deserve it. Spousal support is not supposed to be a free pass to easy street. It is supposed to be assistance to help someone get on their feet financially and garner independence. In this case, it is probably part of the prenup and so he would get spousal support for a determined amount of time, then it stops.

  5. Loopy says:

    What is the point of these prenups when they are constantly being challenged and then totally changed. After 21 months and no kids that is pathetic.

    • Algernon says:

      Mostly they’re just meant to give guidelines to a judge. In this case, Kaley has already agreed to pay spousal support in their pre-nup, so the judge can use that as a jumping off point to decide how much and how long Tennis K-Fed gets it.

    • stacey says:

      I believe a prenup can be reversed if it is deemed extremely unfair to one of the parties.

      I feel sorry for her, if it wasnt clear at the beginning of their marriage then it is now- he was with her for her money.

      • Algernon says:

        Pre-nups in California are especially hard to uphold because the state has a lot of default statutes for stuff like spousal and child support. Even if Kaley laid out terms in her pre-nup, the state’s predetermined statutes could override them. The state isn’t very generous, though. IIRC, the spouse requesting support only gets it for half the length of the marriage, if they’re married under 10 years, and I think there’s a cap on how much they can get, too. It’s not terribly generous if you weren’t married long.

    • Queen B says:

      As a family law attorney based in California, absent fraud, duress or coercion, the court will uphold Kaley’s preup which addresses the amount and duration of spousal support. The preunp is not just a guideline or starting point for the court, the judge must enforce the spousal support provisions unless it determines that to do so would be unconscionable at the time of enforcement. For example, if Ryan was permanently disabled or paralyzed, the court could would likely decide that to limit spousal support would be unconscionable but otherwise Ryan gets whatever terms he agreed to in the prenup.

      Kaley’s divorce petition stated that spousal support was payable and terminable pursuant to the prenup so her attorneys are not surprised that Ryan is requesting spousal support since she already agreed to pay him some predetermined amount in their prenup.

      • The Original G says:

        So, you think this suit is to use the press to leverage some extra cash or longer duration of payment from her to keep things on the down low?

        I guess the press angle it could backfire on him. The optics might well be worse for him, than her.

  6. vauvert says:

    No support. Grown ass man, two year marriage, no kids. Please. I defended him when commenters accused him of gold digging because IMO you shouldn’t accuse someone of gold digging solely based on the fact they married a wealthy person. But his request for support is a definite gold digging act.
    PS I guess I should have requested support when I ended my first marriage after six years, even though there were no kids and I left because his job required him to move every few years to another international location – which meant all I could be was a stay at home spouse. But I figured that having put me through university was enough and being an able bodied, educated human being I could support myself. Which I did. How silly of me not to want to continue living the good life on his fine for another few years:-)

    • stinky says:

      ohhh vauvert . . . ….
      may I ask why you left what sounds like such a nice arrangement??
      I think you prior lifestyle sounds like a dream come true and I’d likely be able to tolerate just about anything in exchange…. sigh … (and of course u need not reply if it’s sad/too personal etc.)

      • Lille says:

        You really left just because of the moves? Or were there other issues? My husband has a similar job, and we have created an amazing life together seeing the world. I do stay home, but when I have time (which is never now that we have a toddler and another on the way) I did study photography and start a small business taking newborn and maternity photographs. I also turned my love for party planning into a business, and that is something I have easily been able to move with us. I am not using my degree, but honestly, I love these jobs so much more, and never would have tried them otherwise.

  7. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I dislike spousal support for either sex if both parties are young and able bodied. Maybe for a very short time if one person gave up their job to support the other. I didn’t ask for spousal support from my ex and he made about 20 times what I did. I didn’t want that connection to him.

    • Dena says:

      GNAT, ditto. My ex makes more than thirty-thousand dollars a year more than I did and I just walked away. The only time I put it on the table was when he tried to stick me with some of his loans for grad school (yes, really), and my lawyer only put it out there to get him to back down. If you can both work, why be tied to this person?

    • Snazzy says:

      I’m with you 100% GNAT. I mean, if one spouse had stayed home with kids to raise them, dependant on the income of the other while s/he was working, sure, fair enough.
      Otherwise, no way.

    • Audrey says:

      I don’t like it, unless a couple has been together for a long time and it only lasts for a few years while the receiver rebuilds their career.

      Like if my marriage ended now, I’d be struggling to find childcare and a job, I’ve been a stay at home mom for almost 3 years. So spousal support would help get me through while i pick up the pieces. But then i would just want regular child support, i can work to support myself

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Right – no shade on someone like you who has worked hard at a no paying job like raising your children. Then, of course you would need, and be entitled to some income while you sorted things out.

    • Mimz says:

      I completely agree with you GNAT. There are special circumstances that can be considered (kids, giving up a career for the other spouse, how long you’ve been married, etc), but usually for a 18month or so wedding, where he was working, and she was already established and making tons of money, I don’t see why?!
      I wouldn’t like to have that link to an ex. Being dependent on his work. Letting go means letting go of everything, in my opinion.

  8. Betti says:

    I can see the point of spousal support if their are children involved but in this particular case as its been revealed the reason she dumped him was because of addictions. Its fair to assume that he’s looking for spousal support to feed those addictions as they are prohibiting him from supporting himself. As the article above points out – he went into the marriage with nothing and his tennis career was already over (I think). Its all very sad.

    I hope he doesn’t start selling her out to the press- could be his leverage to get more money.

    • Algernon says:

      When children are involved, you get child support. I only think an able-bodied healthy person capable of working should get spousal if it’s a case where one partner put their education on hold in order to support the other’s. Like if you don’t finish college and work full time so your partner can go to med school or something like that. Then I see spousal support as a means to that person finishing their education so they can get back on their own two feet. But in general I think spousal support is a crock. When I worked for an estate lawyer I saw *huge* child support payments, like six figures a year, plus the wealthier partner (in most cases it was the man, but a few times it was the woman) agreed to pay rent/mortgage, provide a car, etc. Then on top of all that, they’d ask for spousal support. Why? Your kid is taken care of, and you are capable of working. It’s just entitlement, unless it’s a case where for some reason one partner is legitimately incapable of working to support him/herself, or someone needs to finish their education. Then spousal support can be a stopgap.

  9. Nancy says:

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Men have been paying alimony for decades and it’s been frowned upon by some but generally accepted by society, help the poor defenseless women. Women can’t ask for equal rights then cry when they get them. Some of these girls are so blinded by love or marriage that they’re well…blind. This no longer is the 50’s.

    • meme says:


    • Neah23 says:


    • stacey says:

      i think sheshould just pay him off to get rid of him. Maybe spousal support isnt the right term but if i were her- i would throw him some cash to stay away- its not like she doesnt have the money

      • Green Girl says:

        I think this is what I’d do in her shoes. I’ll also add that I’d make it clear the lump sum was IT. He can’t come back in six months and demand even more.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Considering how some of these girls babble about being submissive and just being happy to cook and care for the man it is the 50’s for them.

      • Cheryl says:


        If she values the 1950’s kind of relationship, in the 1950’s, the starlet paid off the gigolo to keep his trap shut and to fade into the woodwork.

        Give him a lump sum pay off and tie him up with non-disclosure clauses. Then move on to the next questionable decision.

  10. minx says:

    Well, she wanted this guy. She knew him for about 5 minutes before they got engaged.
    I would bet he gets some token amount of money just to get rid of him.

  11. The Original Mia says:

    Yes, it’s fair. She has the money. He doesn’t. She knew there was a disparity in their net worths when she married him. She had the sense to have a prenup drawn up. She should have had the sense to put in a monetary amount on spousal support.

    • MSat says:

      But he COULD be making a lot of money if he applied himself to his career – these pro tennis players can make a lot of cake when they’re at the top. Not to mention endorsements, personal appearance, etc. Instead, he just wants to pop painkillers and pretend he’s sidelined with an injury.

      If it were a woman who married a rich guy, was with him for 21 months, no kids, and she just used him to supply her prescription drug habit, I would not be supportive of that, either.

      • WinnieCoopersMom says:

        From what I understand, he peaked in Tennis before he ever got together w Kayley. Similar to models, Pro tennis players dont make that much unless they are in like the top 10.

      • Algernon says:

        @ WinniesCoopersMom

        He could still make a very comfortable living as a tennis pro or coach. He was on the pro circuit, people will pay just for that affiliation. It wouldn’t be “married to one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood” money, but he could do very well for himself. He would, however, have to work.

      • OrigialTessa says:

        The professional at the country club makes 6 figures, and $100 an hour in private lessons. There’s money out there for him, it’s probably just a lot easier to hit up Kaley for 5 million lump, than to actually, you know, work.

      • The Original G says:

        “She should have had the sense to put in a monetary amount on spousal support.

        I don’t get that she didn’t, the amount just hasn’t been disclosed here.

    • AmyB says:

      Perhaps this is why those stories were released about him having a painkiller addiction….so that she would not have to pay out a lot in spousal support, if it is only clear that the money would go to feed his addiction?? I don’t know, I have to agree with many other posters saying that the marriage was short, no kids were involved, why should he be entitled to her money? Lawyers fees fine. But it’s not like he sacrificed his career in order to support hers, you know? This could very well get ugly…..

  12. Jayna says:

    A short-term specific amount of time, yes, I think it’s fair.

  13. Mia4s says:

    Not sure about the details but this could also be a negotiating tactic. Ask for a ton and get at least some to go away. I would expect some fairly embarrassing stories about her to come out too…unless she pays out. Honestly with her money I would probably advise her to toss a 1/2 million bucks and an air tight NDA at him to go away. She was stupid, lesson learned.

    • stacey says:

      She tried to cover herself with the prenup but in all reality- she knows she will need to pay him off to go away.

      I think this is all a part of how negioations go down, as you said. She offers nothing beyond the prenup is her starting point in negioations and his is to ask for everything and the moon. they will meet in the middle somewhere.

  14. Anon says:

    If the reports of his drug abuse are accurate, if I were her I would be most concerned that I would be basically be supporting that dangerous habit. I don’t think that there is any way for her to limit what he spends said support on though.

  15. Fizz Lemon says:

    Who is this chick? Why so many stories about her here?? Her sitcom and her acting skills are a non event. Yawn.

    • Nancy says:

      I so agree. Just looking at her pictures annoys me. There would no story on here if she were the one asking for alimony btw.

  16. Meatball says:

    I don’t see why he needs spousal support. They were married less than 2 years, he really didn’t give up anything, or contribute to her career, so what is the point. She will probably end up giving him a small settlement and move on. I really dislike that people draw up these prenups and end up having to go against the terms just to get some peace.

  17. My two cents says:

    Wow, no longer than they were married he deserves zero! He brought nothing into it but his pretty face, why should he leave with anything but his pretty face for such a short time. He should appreciate the fact she supported him in luxury for a couple of years. I can’t stand exes that try to win the lottery in a divorce.

  18. vilebody says:

    I read a blind item that said that Ryan Sweeting was thrown when Kaley’s PR team went all “he’s an ADDICT” to the tabloids. Apparently, the split was fairly amicable and he wasn’t asking for any money. However, her PR team was worried about the ridicule she would receive for a 21 month marriage so it threw him under the bus by airing his dirty laundry. If that’s the case, I applaud him and hope he gets the support that a “poor pain-killer addicted deadbeat” needs.

    Granted, any blind item should be taken with a good pound of salt, but I think this one is legit.

    • Betti says:

      I dunno – he’s been living off her from the beginning and his tennis career was already pretty much done. They both used each other – her for the whole marriage fairy tale and him for the easy and celebrity lifestyle that he got.

      • MSat says:

        Yeah, I got a “K-Fed” vibe from him since day one. As for the “planted” story by her PR people – nope. He has a record that dates back to 2006 of DUI and possession.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Have to agree. Does anyone make any effort to actually get to know their spouse before they marry? Because he can’t pout that in the end she cared more about her reputation than their marriage when she’d just filed for divorce.

  19. lem says:

    21 month marriage? In my state/county that would equate to seven months of spousal support if the judge didn’t laugh you out of chambers. And the concern for the funding the drug habit is real–I’d be offering to buy him a nice condo instead (non-cash lump sum) and see if he takes it. Then it would become very apparent what he’s really after…

    • Amanda says:

      That seems like a smart idea. Even if he sold the house, he wouldn’t get the money immediately.

  20. Bucketbot13 says:

    Urmm… I’ll be glad if someone could explain this point…if, as the writer suggested, an end date for spousal payment was not determined in the agreement could it go on forever if the spouse asking for it had his/her way? Is that possible? Would a court grant such a request in any case?


    • noway says:

      Very highly unlikely with a 21 month marriage would a court require spousal support beyond a few years. Generally the longer the marriage the more the business of marriage is evident, and assets are co-mingled; spouses may have declined financial opportunities so their spouse can succeed. etc. and the longer the support would be granted then. You’d really need extenuating circumstances or a crazy judge to have spousal support granted for very long on that short of a marriage.

      I think this is probably a procedural junction in order for him to get the spousal support established in the prenup, and he is just asking for lawyers costs in addition. Which pretty much everyone asks for no matter what the document signed on every court case, although generally not granted, I think lawyers throw this in for themselves because occasionally the judge grants it. My guess is she agreed to it, and lawyers are just being lawyers and following the procedure, and cynically they get paid more this way.

    • lunchcoma says:

      Spousal support in its modern form is almost always limited in duration, but there are some rare cases where it might be a lifetime thing. As an extreme case, perhaps a couple who were married for 40 years, where one partner dropped out of school to work and put their partner through and then subsequently contributed to the family by raising the children and organizing the couple’s social life, and now has serious medical problems that prevent that person from working even part time and that require extensive treatment.

      A marriage of less than two years, where the poorer spouse is a young person who can work, isn’t going to result in that kind of support, though.

  21. Audrey says:

    It sounds like they have a set time frame for spousal support in the prenuptial agreement, probably based on the length of the marriage.

    He’ll probably have to pay his own lawyer fees though, unless she’s feeling generous.

  22. Montréalaise says:

    I’m not sure why you would compare this guy to K-Fed (aka Britney Spears’ ex, Kevin Federline). Federline got the sole custody of their two small children because their mother was too ill to care for them at the time – are you suggesting that he shouldn’t have gotten any support because he’s a guy, and only mothers are entitled to support?
    As for Kaley’s soon-to-be ex, he used to be a pro tennis player, but that ended some years ago. And he hasn’t figured out yet that he needs a new career? Did he expect his wife to support him for the rest of their lives?

    • jwoolman says:

      Yes, Federline never asked for much and she was incredibly lucky to have him as the father of her children. He never said a word against her, said he expected they could go back to joint custody once she was well, allowed the kids to visit her as long as one of her parents was present when the judge had said no visitation. He also kept up a close relationship with her parents. He followed her on tour so the kids could spend time with her. And he wasn’t using the kids as pap bait. Really, he was an ideal ex.

      • Chuch says:

        “And he wasn’t using the kids as pap bait.”

        Anymore. He used to do it for years after he first got custody.

        Kfed gets a bad rep because he and his horse faced wife live off the child support money meant for the two kids and use it to support their lifestyle and his other four kids. It isn’t until recently that he decided to get a sporadic job being a deejay.

      • Neah23 says:

        @ Chuch

        One calling his wife names was uncalled for and those boys were hardly ever photographed with Kevin. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that his wife dose and always had a job she is a special Education teacher.

        I seen pictures of them and nether Kevin or his wife was walking around in designer clothing or driving executive cars.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Pretty much. Britney Dpesrs was an unfit mentally unwell mother at the time and if not for K-Fed her kids would probably be a lot more damaged. He was the one who refused to let her see them when she went and bashed a paparazzi’s car with an umbrella.

      It’s not fair he gets an insulting reference when everyone still gushed and coos over her.

    • hogtowngooner says:

      Yeah, K-Fed really surprised everyone with his post-divorce behaviour, didn’t he? IIRC, he never spoke poorly of her in public, always worked with her (and her dad) even when she was at her worst to make sure she was still able to see her kids and seemed to provide some much-needed stability to them in what must have been a very confusing time for them.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      Never had a problem with Kevin Federline. I always thought he was beyond accommodating during the whole divorce/custody thing.

      • MSat says:

        He’s been great post-divorce/custody hearing, but it was pretty obvious what he was there for in the beginning: the sex and the $$. (Yes, I am ashamed to admit I watched their craptastic reality show! And yes, he was totally douchey and gross back then.)

  23. noway says:

    Kind of bugs me the way people think about the non-celebrity spouse in these types of cases. We just know what we see on these cases from the celebrity PR push, because obviously the non-celebrity doesn’t have PR people anymore. He may be a gold digger, but he could have loved her and is heartbroken that she left him. Who knows. Court is a perfectly legitimate place to settle this, as a divorce is a legal process anyway.

    Bottom line she married him, and supposedly a prenup was signed. Unless she is mentally impaired or he committed fraud, she knew what she was getting into. Now she has to legally resolve it. Women now for the ones who are making more than their spouse, if you want to be treated equal it always goes both ways. If it is right for men to pay alimony, then it is fair for the women.

  24. tacos and tv says:

    I wonder what really happened here? What was the last straw for her? Am I surprised this blew up in her face? No! But, what could have been her “get the f**k out!”, moment? She is Jennifer Love Hewitt 2.0.

  25. MyHiddles says:

    September 26th was a Saturday. I know because that’s my birthday. You probably meant September 25th. And everyone knew the divorce was coming and yes, she should pay alimony if there wasn’t a prenup.

  26. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Well I judged Stephanie March so I’ve got no problems at all judging the hell out of this guy.

    I’d really like it if people could behave a little more intelligently and not waste the court’s time on their sad relationship drama’s. Maybe try to know your potential spouse longer than it takes to shed a skin cell so you know whether they’re going to actually help you or use you to cover themselves when things get dicey.

    As ditzy as she is she made her own wealth fair and square and he had every opportunity to seek his own opportunities while married to her. He didn’t and now he wants spousal support? Pathetic.

  27. Andrea says:

    You’d be surprised how many men want to be taken care of financially once they find out a woman has money. I have had so many exes mooch off of me in the past because of my family’s money. I loved some of them, but the money issue always caused problems. I let a few go because I got tired of bankrolling them. I sadly stayed with another ex for far too long because he had a stable career, was financially secure, and I didn’t have to worry about him mooching off of me. A financially stable woman is like hitting the lottery to a lot of lazy men. I worry that I will have a hard time finding someone now who doesn’t want to mooch off of me.

    • Neah23 says:

      You can say the same thing about a financially stable man.

      • Andrea says:

        Most definitely! I am always appalled when a seemingly independent woman says that she wants a rich man to support her and her lifestyle. Like say what?

  28. funcakes says:

    Thanks to her Big Bang raise she will be able to hire high powered lawyers to make this go away. I hope nothing weird went down during the marriage because I get a “tell all” vibe from this douche face.

  29. Merritt says:

    If he gets support, it should not be for longer than they were married.

  30. morc says:

    As a feminist I hope he gets as much as possible, hopefully 20-30k $ monthly.

  31. Patty says:

    Eh. I’m a bit of a K-Fed apologist. I would not compare him to KFed. KFed was / is primarily getting child support because he is the primary caretaker of the kids he had with Britney. That’s totally different.

    That being said. Prenup or not this is still a cautionary tale about getting to know someone before tying the knot. I know, I know – some people will say when you know you know but people need to ask themselves, how well can you really know someone in such a short period of time. If they had spent more time dating, she may have found (would have likely find out) before they got married (if they even made it that for) that he was lazy or had a drug problem or whatever. People can be good at temporary hiding their issues, problems, etc short term but most people cannot keep the facade long term.

  32. FurballFriend says:

    They were married for less than two years; they have no kids; the dude is worth $2 mil without her money. Get a f*ckin’ job, and quit being a lazy moocher!

  33. CK says:

    I think Kaley “not a feminist” Cuoco agrees to the fact that a woman should “cook and clean for her man” and that she should fit the bill for the next woman to do so since she apparently can’t. Yep, still bitter about her comments a couple of months ago.

  34. Kate says:

    Eh, she seemed to very much like the fact that he was unemployed and thus always available, at least in the beginning. It’s quite possible she told him not to worry about looking for steady work right now, as many men tell their wives, and in that case she most certainly owes him some spousal support. Not a fortune and not forever, but enough for him to start over.

    If you marry someone with a low income/no income, and you financially support them and support their lifestyle choices, this is always going to be an issue. TBH I don’t see the problem with that so long as the support paid is a reasonable amount, which it almost always is.

  35. Fanny says:

    I’m sort of team Tennis K-Fed here. I looked at his ATP page. Despite attempting to work this year he only made $3,330. She made the decision to end their marriage and like it or not, he needs a lawyer. It’s really not fair for him to go up against the team of lawyers someone worth $45 million can afford. So definitely I think for the sake of the fairness of the proceedings, she should pay his legal bills.

    I also think she should pay him some modest spousal support for a short period of time while he gets himself back on his feet. He didn’t contribute to the marriage or her earnings? Bullshit. 90% of the magazine covers Kaley has landed have been as Kaley Cuoco Sweeting. She got tons of press from her princess wedding. She went from FHM cover girl to someone relatable to women who could be on the cover of Redbook discussing what a traditional wife she is.

    Officially, he’s been injured and unable to make headway in the profession he’s trained in. Kaley was supporting him and that was her decision – she may not be obligated to support him indefinitely, but you can’t just pull the rug out from under somebody completely and suddenly like that and leave them on the street. I feel the same way when wealthy men attempt to do that to their ex-wives.

    I think Kaley’s prenup is very challenge-able. People think an “ironclad” prenup means expensive lawyers come up with magic words that make it untouchable. An ironclad prenup is one that is FAIR. It’s one that a judge won’t throw out because it leaves one party with $45 million and the other party penniless and homeless. That’s why all those rich men always agree in advance to a designated amount of cash and property the wife will get. It sounds like Kaley’s prenup just said he gets nothing, which is actually kind of dumb. California judges can and will throw a prenup like that out.

  36. Hannah says:

    If it was me, I’d pay for his lawyer to divorce me but then nothing else. No kids so whatever!

  37. Veronica says:

    I don’t see a problem with her paying the lawyer’s fees if she’s the one who filed, but if he’s got a viable career, then I don’t think a 1-2 year marriage is really worthy of spousal support where no children are involved. (Before I get hammered with accusations of double standards, I would say the same if he were female.) If he can prove that he put his own career on hold for hers, then sure, maybe a year or so of income, I can get behind. But otherwise…my feeling is that you always need to have a backup plan and shouldn’t count on a spouse supporting you long term.