Did Hilary Duff get a really raw deal in her divorce from Mike Comrie?


Hilary Duff and Mike Comrie’s divorce was finalized this week. It was a surprisingly long process – two years! – perhaps because they tried to give their marriage another shot after they split up the first time. Comrie was a professional athlete with the NHL, and he comes from an incredibly wealthy family. So imagine my surprise when I read that Hilary actually had to pay Comrie money in the divorce!

Hilary Duff is now a single woman, and former NHL star Mike Comrie’s a single guy, because their divorce is now final. According to new legal docs making the divorce official, Hilary must pay Mike $2,408,786 to settle their financial split. She gets to keep their Bev Hills mansion and other property as well.

Hilary and Mike get joint custody of their 3-year-old son Luca. They split the child-rearing costs and neither gets spousal support. In the docs, obtained by TMZ, Hilary gets to keep her interest in a Malibu mobile home — it’s a very ritzy thing among the rich. He gets to keep his 2014 Bentley coupe, a 2013 Mercedes G-Class SUV and a bunch of jewelry.

[From TMZ]

Comrie’s father, Bill Comrie, founded a Canadian retail company and the family is worth “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Which goes a long way towards explaining why Mike Comrie always came across like such an entitled douchebag. But Us Weekly explained that Duff had to pay off Comrie because A) they had a valid pre-nup and B) because Comrie is “letting” her keep the Beverly Hills mansion. Meaning, they co-owned the mansion and she’s buying him out of the property.

Also: Us Weekly says neither spouse will receive spousal support from the other. Yeah… I get that the pre-nup was valid, but who wrote the pre-nup? Is it the same lawyer who convinced Hilary to pay out to Mike? Because I feel like she could use some better representation. I’m sure Duff has money saved and some money coming in (she’s worth somewhere in the ballpark of $20 million, allegedly), but it seems like her interests were not being properly represented. Please tell me Comrie is at least paying some child support?


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

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

72 Responses to “Did Hilary Duff get a really raw deal in her divorce from Mike Comrie?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sisi says:

    wether it’s a raw deal for Hilary probably depends on the worth of the properties. Perhaps that 2 million stands for half of the house (&other property) she’s buying from him? It wouldn’t surprise me if they live in a 5 million dollar house.

    • Erinn says:

      I see absolutely nothing wrong – to me this seems like the most fair divorce in a long time.

      Really – if she wants to keep the properties, and they were bought together, why wouldn’t it make sense to buy his share out? The other option is to put it up for sale and split the profit.

  2. CornyBlue says:

    Seems extremely fair to me.

    • LookyLoo says:

      Seems fair to me, too, especially if she’s buying his interest in the real estate. If they are sharing custody and earn about the same (what his family has shouldn’t be in the equation), then there’s no need for child support.

      • swak says:

        Don’t know why his families wealth was mentioned. I agree it was extremely fair and there is a lot more that goes into the financial end of the divorce. It’s not just what he makes and she makes, it includes property, pensions, etc. They must apparently be making about the same amount of money, otherwise there would be child support one way or the other (him to her or her to him). Plus we don’t know what the prenup said.

    • Locke Lamora says:

      Yeah, to me too.

    • Katie says:

      I agree. He shouldn’t get taken to the cleaners simply because he comes from a wealthy family. And if they share custody and child rearing costs then child support would seem punitive.

    • Sabrine says:

      She has earning potential for years to come and he will probably do very little being an over the hill hockey player. The divorce sounds totally fair and even, right down to the joint custody.

    • lucy2 says:

      Me too, and I agree his family wealth is of no importance here.

      To me it sounds like a fairly equal split, and she’s just buying out his share of the property, which was worth more than the stuff he got.

  3. lisa2 says:

    Do we ever ask if the Man go a raw deal. I don’t know much about her situation. But I don’t think anyone would say anything if this was reversed.

    • Belle says:

      Exactly. Why assume that because a woman has to pay out, she’s getting poor legal advice or got screwed over? And why should he pay child support? Duff has ample money in the bank, along with her career. I’m pretty sure she can manage. Feminists whine about wanting equality, well, here it is.

      • Betsy says:

        Is it his child, too? Does he have ample money, arguably more than hers, that can further enrich said child’s life? Is he a dad who cares? Then, yes, I hope he is paying money.

        And feminists are not “whining” about equal treatment. What a contemptuous word.

      • Hadleyb says:

        Child support he should pay even if she has billions, its his kids too!! Spousal support no.

        Also she has worked steadily — a lot of women get support who never worked, gave up careers for YEARS and are now 50, 60 — so I think its different when you give your life up to raise a family, and support your husband with a home, etc.

        Also she what? 25? Plenty of time to keep working.

      • swak says:

        @hadleyb: Most states have a child support formula that determines how much a person (male/female) pay. If they have equal income then no child support should go either way. Why should it just be him that pays child support? Why shouldn’t she have to pay child support if the situation warranted it? Women don’t automatically need or get child support.

      • lucy2 says:

        Whine about equality? Ugh.

        It says in the article that they have joint custody and will share child expenses. Unless the kid truly spends equal time with each parent, 50/50, one will have more expenses than the other, who should contribute money to make it even. If the kid lives 75% with the dad, then Hilary should pay support. If he’s more time with Hilary, then the dad should pay. THAT is equality, not oh she made money so the guy shouldn’t have to contribute anything.

      • Jessica says:


        If she had billions, SHE would be paying child support to HIM.

        It’s incredibly sexist to say that the man has to pay child support no matter how much money each party makes.

      • Bridget says:

        Child support is determined by who has primary custody. It’s fair upkeep of the child, as the financial burden is shared jointly. It doesn’t matter who has more money or not.

  4. Mgsota says:

    If she’s keeping all the property it’s probably a very good deal for her.

  5. Rice says:

    It really irks me that TMZ “obtains” court documents on high profile cases.

    Anyway, I’ve got a soft spot for Lizzie Macguire so I hope she starts seeing an awesome guy.

    • Sarah says:

      I practiced family law in Canada and court documents are PUBLIC documents. So TMZ or anyone can get them. Only child protection files are closed to the public.

  6. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    So she’s supposed to get extra because his parents are rich? How is that “fair?” In my divorce, we split the marital assets, which only included any inherited money IF it had been blended in with the combined accounts. Any money that was kept separate during the marriage belonged to the person who brought it in. I hate this attitude that women should get rich through divorce. For one thing, in spite of what we read about celebrities,that doesn’t usually happen. Most women are impoverished or hurt financially by divorce. So it creates unrealistic expectations. For another, it’s gross. You should equally divide the assets you accumulated as a couple. Period. His family has nothing to do with it.

    • MelissaManifesto says:

      Spoken like the true, smart, lovely feminist that you are. Kudos!

    • lowercaselois says:

      +1 and she is young and will move on with her life and career.

    • DavidBowie says:


    • Betsy says:

      Unless “family money” is code for “has an ample trust.” She shouldn’t get that, but I sure hope their kid gets the same access to that moneythey would have without divorce.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I suppose that depends on the father, but in my opinion children aren’t automatically entitled to their parent’s money as long as their basic needs are met. Don’t get me wrong, if I had children I would leave them all of my money, assuming I had any and I didn’t think it would harm them (if they were drug addicts or something) but I don’t feel that my parents owe me anything. It’s their money.

    • Crumpet says:

      I’ll say. I owed my ex a great deal of my 401K when we split. Ouch.

    • swak says:

      Thank you. My divorce was the same. My pension is deemed individual and not marital (I am in our public school retirement system and that’s how it is viewed here) and he couldn’t touch it. His pension was marital and I got part of that. I also had to pay him equity from the house since I wanted to keep it (Myself and our children had grown up in the house and I didn’t want to have to sell it). There was no spousal support because we both made about the same amount of money and the children were grown, two out of the house and one still in college. We are both responsible for the loans taken out for college tuition and he actually got out of paying one semester for the youngest because she took a semester off and he was only responsible for what would have been if she had graduated that June.

  7. Ellie says:

    Didn’t he cheat on her with a prostitute or something? If that’s the case, then this is BS. Agree his family shouldn’t necessarily matter but he should have money of his own if he was a professional athlete.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Long time girlfriend in Canada that he never split up with during dating and marriage to Duff. Allegedly.

      • Ellie says:

        What a sketchball. Oh I found what I was thinking about — he tried to pay a waitress for sex. Celebitchy covered it but I can’t get the link to paste.

        Zip, I stand by what I said. If they both have their own money and he was the one who was unfaithful, he should be paying her. Money aside completely, if he was screwing around she shouldn’t be the one paying.

      • Mltpsych says:

        California is a no fault state which means if he cheated it would not affect the divorce at all or the settlement

    • Zip says:

      So what if he has money of his own? She’s worth millions herself. Why should she be paid off? The only thing he would have to pay for is the child they created.

    • CornyBlue says:

      Even if he cheated why should that result in more money for Duff unless that was a clause in the prenup?

      • swak says:

        Thank you.

      • Tara says:

        I’ve been wondering why everything except marriage is treated as legally binding contract. I think there should be a legal shift to consider all marriages contracts. You specify on the license what you’re promising each other, with periodic updates signed by both with their own witnesses. When the contract is broken, courts determine fault and liability. Seems fairer than the emotionally loaded tacit premarital negotiations that go on now. At this point, it seems society thinks everything BUT marriage vows should be meaningfully binding, i.e., no fault regardless of what kind of f()€|<ery people pull of the ones they've promised to love and honor. Very lopsided IMO.

      • Nic919 says:

        All marriages are contracts. It is why you need to obtain a licence and register the marriage. The romantic love stuff was only considered in the late 18thc. Women were property transferred from father to husband, hence the change in last name.
        The only time people realize that marriage is a contract is when things go wrong and the division of assets need to take place. Or if one of both parties have significant assets pre marriage to protect and so a pre nup is considered.

    • LNG says:

      No fault divorce. Behaviour during the marriage has no bearing on division of assets.

  8. Sarah01 says:

    I never understood his appeal, she could have done better than that. I really like her that she didn’t become another miley. I wish her much luck!

  9. TheOtherMaria says:

    If they have joint custody and can both provide the same quality of life, independently, child support is not needed.

    Seems to me they divorced amicably and greed wasn’t part of the final negotiations, it’s a refreshing change of pace to be honest!

  10. Louise177 says:

    If she’s buying half of the house I don’t see anything wrong. Also they have joint custody and sharing child costs. If it’s truly 50/50 then Hilary doesn’t deserve child support. Also I don’t see how Mike’s family is an issue. Just because his parents have money doesn’t mean he has it. If he has a trust fund I don’t know if Hilary deserves any of it.

    • swak says:

      Especially if that trust was set up before they were married. It would be his and not theirs (unless her name was on it also).

  11. nicole says:

    Yeah, like everyone else is saying this doesn’t sound unreasonable for buying him out. His parents money wouldn’t come into the equation of their property value. Also, she’s working still and to my knowledge he doesn’t play hockey anymore due to injury.

  12. Sara says:

    Why does she need his money? she has her own. No one owes you money because you were once married. They split the childcare costS. Very fair imho.

  13. Karen says:

    It depends on who bought the property she’s staying in. If he did, then she’s buying him out of it with that 2 mil sum.

    Sounds like everything was split evenly. Theyre both rich.

  14. What's inside says:

    She is worth more than he is, she wants to keep living in the family home that their son is used to, keeps the vacation place in Malibu, and call it all good. I think though she paid him, the real estate value will more than make up for it and they are not bitter about the way things went.

  15. Original Kay says:

    Strange write up for this site. Equal rights means equal rights for everyone and it seems that all things are equal with this divorce.
    To suggest she needs/should receive child support just because she is a woman sets all women back, not forward.

  16. Trixie says:

    Why does he have to pay her child support if they have joint custody and are splitting the child rearing costs?

    • idsmith says:

      I wondered that myself, but there are several commenters in the posts above arguing strenuously that because he is a father to the child, he should automatically be paying her child support.
      I disagree. If both parents make adequate money to support the child in a similar fashion and they are sharing custody no money should change hands. Perhaps they should both be required to pay into an education fund, but other than that, children are not a steady source of funds for one parent to take advantage of the other.

  17. Velvet Elvis says:

    Just because his family is worth hundreds of millions of dollars doesn’t mean that he is. Look at Tori Spelling. Why must it always be assumed that a woman should get child support? They have joint custody and both have enough money to provide whatever is needed during their time with the kids. I actually think this is a divorce settlement that makes sense for a change.

  18. Cinderella says:

    Sounds fair to me…She paid him his share of the equity. If they bought it together, that’s how that goes.

    Two and a half mil in BH won’t get him anything more than a garage to park his Bentley.

  19. Erinn says:

    Honestly – Duff hit it lucky when she was a kid. She’s really not that talented, nor that interesting – but she’s likable enough so she’s kept a bit of a name for herself.

    That being said – she’s also the kind of person that rents out the trolley at The Grove for hours on end during thanksgiving weekend because ‘omg I’m so famous that I can’t be expected to let my child ride with the peasants’.

  20. lizzie says:

    Is anyone watching Younger? It is so adorable and she is great in it.

  21. QQ says:

    No, No, see, in a way the raw deal was that she married that doughy faced douchey guy and stayed for a while, The whole paying him, is cost of doing business , preparing to upgrade if you would

  22. nicegirl says:

    At least she’s rid of him, was probably her line of thinking. A ‘time cut your losses’, kind of a deal. Lots of folks end up caring a lot less about the financials at the end of a divorce and more about having it over.

  23. Cee says:

    Does he have any money of his own? Unless he has already inherited his share of the family’s fortune, that money is off limits. If he has to pay child support it should be with his own NHL (& maybe trust fund) money.

    It seems Duff bought him out of his share of their properties. If she hadn’t then I believe property would have been sold and profits split between them.

    • swak says:

      Yep, on the property thing. I bought my ex out because it was my childhood home. Didn’t want to sell it.

    • Holmes says:

      I very much doubt this egghead has any money of his own. He hasn’t played hockey for years and he was a shite player when he did. He wasn’t getting any big contracts. Probably league minimum at most. That money is long gone.

  24. lila fowler says:

    Comrie’s family’s retail company might be worth that much but it doesn’t mean that they have that much sitting in bank accounts. Maybe if they sold it? That’s like when mags call Jessica Alba a billionaire. Well, her business was valued at that on paper but she doesn’t have the coins actually in her pocket and is probably paid a salary. Same thing could be happening here. Maybe he has a trust but I’d think not if Hilary has had to pay him a lump sum. Trust fund money would be factored into the payment. I think his family’s actual wealth-in-hand is generally overestimated.

  25. word says:

    Well the money she paid him was for the property she wanted to keep. They both owned the property (which was purchased after marriage). I don’t see anything unfair here. She gave him his share of what he paid for the house.

  26. FF says:

    What raw deal? (And frankly, she could sell half of her handbag collection and come up with more cash.) She’s fine.

    She also likely doesn’t want an acrimonious separation from the father of her son.

  27. word says:

    Comrie’s father owned The Brick Furniture store with his two brothers. They sold the company a few years ago for a big chunk of change. Who knows if Hilary’s ex will get any of that money.

  28. Lex says:

    She got a damn beautiful son out of the marriage who seems to be her whole world so that’s more than enough payment 🙂
    As long as she can keep him away from daddy enough so he doesn’t learn his douchebaggery!

  29. Mela says:

    The only raw deal is that he cheated on her. Dude is not cute whatsoever.

  30. Veronica says:

    Well, his parents assets are not necessarily his own, so there’s no reason they should feature into any contract. The $2 million is likely a buyout from the properties, which is…hmm, fair enough, honestly. I would think she’s actually getting the better deal in the long run, considering that property values generally increase over time (with rare exceptions). Similarly, amicable joint custody situations can generally agree to skip child support if both parents are well off.