Kevin Costner is on the warpath about Christine Baumgartner’s prenup challenge

I was rooting for Christine Baumgartner but that poor woman is getting torn up by Kevin Costner, Laura Wasser and the entire family court system of California. Christine might have gotten the upper hand by filing for divorce and surprising Costner, but it’s been bad news ever since. Costner’s lawyers are taking Christine to the woodshed and it does not look like this woman has any sort of plan or strategy to nullify the prenup she signed 19 years and three children ago. Basically, Christine is getting hosed and Costner is calling all of the shots:

Attorneys for Kevin Costner accused the actor’s estranged wife Christine and her legal team of “gamesmanship of the worst sort” in new court documents relating to their divorce. In a request for order filed in California Superior Court Aug. 10 and obtained by PEOPLE, attorneys for the 68-year-old Yellowstone star have asked the court to compel Christine — who filed for divorce May 1 after 18 years of marriage — to explicitly answer a number of questions they have put to her about the Costners’ premarital agreement.

The lawyers claim Christine, 49, has avoided answering questions — including whether or not she understood the agreement before she signed it — throughout the discovery process as both legal teams prepare for the November trial to determine the validity of the prenup. Under the prenup’s terms, Christine received a $1.5 million payout, which she risks forfeiting by challenging the agreement.

“Four months into this matter, and three months away from the commencement of the trial on the validity of the PMA, Christine refuses to make known all of her contentions regarding the validity of the PMA,” an attorney for Kevin claimed in the new documents.

“The objections she has mustered in an effort to not disclose her contentions are frivolous. She says she does not understand words like ‘understood’ or ‘negotiation,’ so she cannot answer this discovery,” the document further stated. “She says she does not know what commonly legal phrases like ‘legal effect’ and ‘supersedes’ mean, so she cannot answer this discovery. She refuses to admit (or even deny) that the specific factual representations she and her attorney made in the PMA itself are accurate, to wit, that she understood the PMA, that it was explained to her and that she acknowledged she understood the meaning and legal effect of the PMA,” the lawyer continued.

In a separate statement filed in court the same day, Kevin’s lawyers called Christine’s tactics “gamesmanship of the worst sort.”

“‘Understood’ is not a technical or arcane word. It is not ground for objection that a request is ambiguous, unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply,” wrote the lawyer. Kevin is also seeking around $14,000 in legal fees he accrued as a result of his legal team trying to elicit answers from Christine. “Discovery is not a game of chicken. Kevin should never have been required to spend money to file a motion,” the request for order stated.

[From People]

Lawyers, help me out here – Costner and Baumgartner are headed to a bifurcated divorce trial where Christine is challenging the prenup (the PMA), and Costner’s lawyers are throwing a huge hissy fit because Christine won’t answer questions in discovery? Is that right? She’s being purposefully obtuse about what she “understood” about the PMA. Apparently, the trial is set for November 27 and the discovery cutoff is October 27. Meaning, she has another two months before she has to really answer these questions from Costner’s lawyers. So, when you see the schedule… Costner really comes across as bullying and hectoring, like “why don’t you have all of this done NOW” and the deadline isn’t for another two months. I hope Christine and her lawyers have a larger strategy at play here because Costner is using the court to publicly bully and berate her.

Note by CB: Get the Top 10 stories about Kevin Costner’s divorce when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

74 Responses to “Kevin Costner is on the warpath about Christine Baumgartner’s prenup challenge”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. UpIn Toronto says:

    This is terrible to watch. Costner is not being reasonable!

    • Laura Wasser, SHAME on You!!! Sometimes “Status” and “Money” is NOT everything… INTEGRITY IS!!! Remember that in a few Years when you’re a GRANDMOTHER!!!

    • Delphine says:

      I seriously cannot stand him now to the point that he makes my skin crawl when I see a pic of him. He’s greedy, petty, spiteful, and likely psychologically abusive. He doesn’t seem to care how this will affect his kids. I will never understand why men do this to the mothers of their children. I hope that every project he works on for the rest of his life tanks as badly as Water World. Actually I hope he never works again. It’s not like he needs the money.

  2. Saschafrom76 says:

    I’ll never watch anything he has anything to do with Ever Again, Mr Brad Pitt 2.0 what a pile of garbage he is !!!

    • WaterDragon says:

      I totally agree. I used to like his his movies, but not more.

      I get that he was taken to the cleaners during his first divorce from his college sweetheart. This apparently embittered him for life and made him determined to be the total winner in any future divorces.

      ideally, Christine should have never married him. He was damaged goods. Unfortunately, she fell for him and thought that love would prevail. Sadly, their 3 children will be the ultimate casualties

    • JM says:

      All I think when I look at him now is “what a greedy loser.”

  3. Lightpurple says:

    Discovery cutoff is October 27, which means ALL discovery must be completed by that day unless the parties ask for an extension. Within that, depending on state procedural rules, are other discovery rules setting time limits on responding to each discovery request like 15 days to respond to a set of interrogatories or request for documents, because there can be follow up questions. It doesn’t mean she has until October 27 to answer any individual question. She only has the state time limit so if that’s 30 days and she received the interrogatory in May, she is past time on that and in violation of the rules unless there’s a legitimate legal reason for not answering that question

    • Jen says:

      This – there are specific deadlines for various things required to ensure that both parties have time to do all of their discovery by the discovery deadline.

    • Josephine says:

      Agree. Sounds like the attys can’t figure out how to get around the question. I would not blame her but her attys. They haven’t got a strategy and the attys on the other side are right to be frustrated and ticked. The refusal to answer is making it difficult if not impossible for them to complete discovery. It’s a delay tactic without asking for a delay.

    • Mimi says:

      Agree. In NY, the parties have 20 days to answer discovery demands (from date of receipt). She doesn’t have 2 months to respond.

  4. MF says:

    I can’t imagine being married to someone for 19 years and not wanting them to live a good, comfortable life. Even if the marriage is ending, why would you want to leave your former spouse and parent of your children with nothing or close to it? I dunno, his response to all this just seems very cold.

    • Twin Falls says:


    • Libra says:

      Revenge. She filed first . Ego buster.

    • Megan says:

      I assume she left him for someone else and his ego is massively bruised.

    • Josephine says:

      Agreed. He missed the opportunity to simply pay her a reasonable amount and move on. He’s known to be stubborn and probably thinks it is too late to settle now. I do wonder if she had an affair but I honestly don’t think that needed to happen for him to be behaving like this. We can never know everything but he’s an idiot for not being reasonable regardless of what happened.

    • Dutch says:

      Didn’t he send an enormous hint 20 years ago that he loved his assets more than his future wife by making her sign this iron-clad prenup? Blinded by love or not she had to believe that he would not be sympathetic to her if the marriage ever dissolved.

      • B says:

        Are her lawyers trying to say she was not astute enough (this is a very nice way of saying the actual word I’m thinking of) to know not to sign the prenup and not able to think critically about what could happen to actually appreciate what the prenup would mean?
        Dating the guy in the first place given his ongoing bitterness towards his first, marrying the guy she had to cajole in to it, taking the pitifully small (first) ring, signing a prenup which was blatantly and obviously unfair, multiple failed businesses, having multiple children with a guy that wouldn’t let her own a car and stingy w money more so than with the staff (!), no real plan for the divorce….
        Maybe she genuinely doesn’t understand these basic words?
        I doubt Kevster was looking to date someone who was as sharp as the lawyer he just hired even if she was smoking hot too.
        I’d be curious what full cognitive testing would show.

      • Dutch says:

        You are proving my point. There is nothing in his behavior over the course of this relationship that should lead anyone to reasonably believe Costner would display a shred of compassion toward another soon-to-be ex-wife.
        Baumgartner was a 29-year old college graduate with her own legal representation when the prenup was negotiated, I am confident she comprehends the basics of her native tongue. Besides, being a dim-witted damsel is not a valid reason to break a contract of this nature and her lawyers are playing games in the hopes Costner gets tired of it all and pays her to go away.

      • Ash says:

        Yeah, she’s gonna have to come better than this. Since she so badly wants a divorce she should’ve asked for a large payout and walked away, this public fight isn’t worth it because at this point she could walk away with only child support and that’ll be up within 5-6 years. Take a $10 million settlement, make him purchase a home for she and the kids, accept child support, and move on. Something is better than absolutely nothing.

      • Dutch says:

        Or request the $1.5 million payout be adjusted for inflation and/or have the housing piece be changed to equal the median price of a 4 bedroom house in the area of primary residence. Those seem to be reasonable asks that reflect the length of the marriage.

    • Melody says:

      The sentence “you only fully know the person you married the day you’re getting a divorce” is unfortunatly very accurate here…

    • CJT says:

      Divorce can utterly blow up and destroy any and all good will between long time spouses. I’ve seen it and I’ve experienced it. It’s sad but it happens.

  5. Becks1 says:

    Look we can argue about whether the PMA is fair or whether she should have signed it or whether Costner should just give her more money.

    But based on these excerpts, it does not sound like his lawyers are “throwing a hissy fit” or bullying and hectoring her. If the discovery cut off is 10/27, that means ALL discovery. So its pretty standard to send interrogatories or the like before the cutoff, and then you make OTHER discovery requests based on those responses. Interrogatories, depositions, etc – all that takes place BEFORE the discovery deadline ends. And often interrogatories will have a deadline in them for them to be returned. You don’t just sit on all discovery requests and turn it on the last day.

    • michyk says:

      as usual, the voice of reason, Becks1! i think most can agree that Costner is behaving horribly and is lacking a certain amount of compassion and empathy regarding his spouse of 19 years. but it also sounds like she didn’t have any plan other than denying she ‘understood’ the original prenup so she shouldn’t be held to it. which, does not seem like a sound legal defense (says the person with no law experience at all!).

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Becks1, I appreciate and agree with your input regarding Costner dogging for Christine’s team team proceed for the finalization of the discovery process before the deadline . I DO think that Costner and his attorneys are purposely slamming Christine in the court of public opinion as the entirety of his divorce is making Costner look very, very spiteful, vindictive and utterly cruel.

      Costner and his counsel could easily have kept these issues as a private matter. There is absolutely no reason OR excuse for them to blast Christine all over the country.

      • Jen says:

        I don’t think they’ve done anything in the court of public opinion – they filed legal documents to compel discovery. Because of the interest in the case, the media is watching court filings regarding the matter. It doesn’t sound like they’ve released statements directly to the media, but made their arguments through the legal process.

        If they don’t make the motions and file the documents, they have no recourse.

    • Mel says:

      Becks1 – exactly. Sure, he could have much more compassion. This is not common in divorcing couples (I say this as a Psychologist). We don’t have to like him, but they are playing by the rules and it appears Christine is not. To be fair, if she is messing around like this she is the problem. As it state, the terminology is not arcane and if the shoe were on the other foot and Kevin were pulling this, we would be roasting him terribly. She isn’t prepared, she isn’t following the rules, the prenup is likely valid, divorcing people are regularly unsympathetic to their exs….. we will find out in time if he did something awful. But for now, she is actually appearing to be the problem.

      If this couple were sitting in my office, and I had access to the same info we have at current, I would find Christine to be the problematic party. I say this as someone who spent years in divorce court with an ex who refused to respond to discovery, also ringing up my bills. She is not following process, and that is judicial abuse. She does need to pay that 14k bill for behaving inappropriately. Do what is expected, follow the rules, etc. I don’t give preference to either party in these scenarios – the rules and contracts are intended to be followed until and only when a judge decides differently.

      If she is a victim, we will hear about how. But in this court case, she isn’t.

      • dimdamdom says:

        to all non star people using their own non hollywoodian divorce as example : for Hollywood people’s, divorce is judged by 2 tribunals : the legal tribunal one, and the opinion one. It’s a loose-loose situation for him, as if he legally wins, his greediness will damage his reputation so bad

      • Becks1 says:

        That’s actually not a “lose lose” situation, because he would win legally, even if he loses publicly. But he’s clearly not worried about public perception here, so that’s not a battle he seems to be trying to win. He’s focused on the legal battle.

    • SarahLee says:

      I totally agree. I’m really confounded that enforcing a legally binding agreement could be considered bullying or hectoring. And as was pointed out above – there are deadlines for things with time limits. All discovery has to be complete by 10/27. That doesn’t means she has until then to produce answers to questions or documents. What she’s doing is waiting until the last day (15 or 20 or whatever it is in Cali), and then providing incomplete or absurd answers like not understanding what the word understand means. And the notion that would automatically want my ex to live a happy and comfortable life is also absurd. I might, but I also might not depending on the circumstances. I would make sure my kids are comfortable, but all bets are off on the spouse. I think folks here are just automatically siding with the woman, when by all accounts, she’s not the victim here.

      • Mel says:

        Yes, you nailed it. They are just siding with the woman.

        If only the facts were listed and no party was indicated on either side (or if it were the exact opposite, like in Kelly Clarkson’s scenario) we would all actually be on Kevin’s side.

  6. Queen Meghan’s Hand says:

    I wonder why her reasoning is that she didn’t understand what she was signing rather than or only 1.5M is too low for her to maintain her children’s lifestyle, take care of her still very minor children?
    Costner is a piece of crap. Never forget how long he spoke at Whitney’s funeral!

    • Becks1 says:

      well child support is being decided separately.

      I honestly just think she thought it would be easy peasy to nullify the prenup and she’s now realizing that its not, so she’s scrambling because she pinned her hopes on that. I just can’t imagine what her lawyers were thinking though.

    • Jen says:

      The $1.5 million has nothing to do with the children’s lifestyle as I believe he offered something like $150k per month in child support for the kids while she wanted $250k per month. I have no doubt that he is behaving badly, but she also seems to be dragging her feet and making misrepresentations which I think takes away from any legitimate points she may make.

      • Josephine says:

        The child support money won’t last that long since the kids are teens. And in theory the money should be spent on the kids. They both made huge mistakes here – she was unprepared and sat on her rights for years and years and he’s making life miserable for the mother of his own kids. They are both short-sighted.

    • Mimi says:

      Child support will be decided separately and he has already said that he would pay her $150,000 a month in child support AND assume all of the children’s expenses (medical and school related, I believe). She is arguing strictly about the lump sum to be allowed to her. Per the prenup, it was supposed to be $1.5 million. He is worth hundreds of millions, so she probably figured he would give her $20-50 million to go away, but he’s not playing ball.

      • Sugarhere says:

        ” She probably figured he would give her $20-50 million to go away, but he’s not playing ball. “: Gross miscalculation indeed, on Christine Baumgartner’s part. Why? Because 19 is not only the number of years they were married. 19 years is the age gap between Kevin and her. In other words, even with a stretch of the imagination, there’s absolutely no way a global superstar worth hundreds of millions will allow his wife to brutally remind him that he is on the ageing slope while she can still cougar her way of her golden cage and live the life with HIS money.

        She will be screwed because she hit the man where it hurts most. Costner isn’t even putting up a fight for the money but for his male ego. That’s why taking the younger neighbor to Hawaii was a whopping no-no.

      • Dutch says:

        Age difference doesn’t have as much to do with it as his first wife was awarded $80 million in their divorce and he wasn’t going to have that happen again regardless if Wife No. 2 was 19 years younger or 19 years older.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    He should just buy her a house and give her what she wants for child support.

    • Lightpurple says:

      She is not going to get what she wants in child support unless she is asking for exactly what state law provides. States have child support schedules based on income/assets. They can agree to more than what the court calculates but she can’t demand it unless she can prove he is hiding income/assets

  8. AnneL says:

    The lawyers are just doing their job. She’s has had quite a bit of time to answer these questions, so if she hasn’t yet or is being invasive they are going to get tough about it, unless their client requests otherwise.

    Costner is a bastard. I know she filed for divorce and I guess he’s hurt and angry, but she’s the mother of his three children and he’s loaded. He’s being totally unreasonable.

    • Donna says:

      My experience, in Florida, is this is pretty standard in answeing discovery. We always said it was vague, etc. In the first response. The other side complained and everyone went to the judge to rule. It happened in every case. You never answered every question directly in initial discovery and the other side never didn’t complain that their discovery requests weren’t answered sufficiently. That’s what lawyers do.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      The entire issue at hand is two fold.

      Christine was foolish to think that she could contest the prenup, either by her own admission OR at the behest of her attorneys. Both of which are foolish and not legally binding on HER part. In addition, Christine did not revisit the prenup as their marriage carried on throughout the years which turned into decades, that is ALL on her.

      Now, as for Costner, yes, he is within his legal rights to deny the challenge put forth with which Christine’s attorneys present to his counsel regarding the prenup, BUT Costner is looking like the resentful, bitter, angry and spiteful man that he is!!! Costner had been burned badly from his first divorce and has taken extreme measures to insure that he has not added any form of asset that could be considered as joint property!!!

      In the end, the ONLY victims in their divorce are their children.

  9. Bri W. says:

    I wanted to root for her but the way she is handling this is completely bonkers.

  10. CJT says:

    This prenup situation is very tricky. A prenup is a prenup. If it’s valid then it’s valid. Over the course of their marriage and having their children, she should have considered revisiting their prenup as so many women married to marginal men do (hello, Melania). I’m also wondering why no other real estate was acquired during the course of their marriage because that would be outside the scope of a prenup most likely.
    This is just messy.

    • Ula1010 says:

      I think Kevin learned a lot from his previous divorce regarding protecting his assets. He sure didn’t learn how to be a better person though. I’m guessing he made sure to acquire little to nothing that she could take away from him. She sounds like a woman who doesn’t have a lot of options.

      • AnneL says:

        Yeah, he’s a dogshit person. I don’t care if he’s hurt and angry (though I think this is all about his ego and he’s mainly angry), she is the mother of his three minor children and he can afford to be way more generous.

        This is going to impact his relationship with his children. With their parents divorcing and their father often absent, the last thing they need is lingering bitterness and animosity between them. It would be best for them, and for everyone, if he just reached a settlement with her sooner rather than later.

      • Becks1 says:

        He apparently is still on really good terms with his children from his first marriage, so if that divorce didn’t ruin his relationship with those children, these children may be fine as well.

  11. Slush says:

    Regardless if Kevin is a nice person or not, it sounds like *she* is the one challenging the prenup, yet *she* is the one avoiding discovery. That dog don’t hunt, sorry.

  12. Mrs. S says:

    It baffles me that people are still condemning him. He has done nothing but protect his assets in which they signed a prenup over. Every step she’s made since filing for the divorce has been messy and grabby. She made no efforts to set herself up for success before the marriage or during the marriage other than marrying rich. Now she’s demanding ridiculous amounts because she’s the mother of his kids… a mother who has had every single luxury one could imagine. This woman wasn’t putting in the hard, dirty, stressful work of raising those kids. He’s willingly and happily providing for his children. This woman is the definition of gold digger. Replace her name with K-Fed, and reevaluate your stance.

    • Mel says:

      Sadly, I agree. When I was in divorce court, I had to evidence everything I made a claim to. That’s how assets get divided – by agreement, or by evidence. We do need to cut this ‘poor her’ dialogue because she really is turning out to be difficult. The argument that he could be generous is valid, but also not realistic in this situation. Divorced people are generally angry and hurt. I am not pleased with his behavior but it is all realistic. If she is abusing the court process I will firmly be against her. I experienced judicial abuse for years (and then won everything I asked for) so I won’t stand for it from anyone.

    • Jen says:

      I agree – the longer this has gone on. He offered to pay her rental costs for a year so she would abide by the terms of the prenup; she refused then acted like he was trying to make her homeless. He offers $150k per month in child support and she acts like that is stingy because she wants $250k. She makes allegations, but then won’t respond to the legal documents requesting the details.

      Either she’s getting very bad legal advice or she’s a big problem here or both.

      He could be a horrible spouse, but in regards to the divorce, she seems to be the one playing games.

    • Josephine says:

      How do you know what kind of mother she was? I think there have been big mistakes by both of them here, but I also think that people way, way, way undervalue the work that women put in raising kids and keeping up the household, especially when one spouse is very frequently absent. They were married for 19 years and had 3 kids – I don’t think she’s a golddigger for wanting more than the prenup signed before kids and before 19 years passed.

      • Kelly says:

        Nannie’s, housekeepers, staff, did all the heavy lifting. She shopped and went to the spa. Only cares about her looks.

    • Kelly says:

      She is dumb. Became his kept gf for years before he reluctantly married her. Why did a college graduate not develop herself? Become self sufficient. We must all only rely on ourselves. She is now a monster with the Botox, face lifts, tummy tucks, designer everything. She is 50 for gods sake. Men don’t want old gals. She needs to get a job. She looked much better before messing with her face.

  13. Mamasan says:

    Unfortunately, she didn’t do the homework both with the prenup or preparing for this divorce.
    As douchebaggery as he is, he is willing to carefor his children, just not her.
    She, for some reason, did not expect him to be this upset? She does not strike me as someone who sees things in the big perspective. Costner is classic narcissist and we saw how the first divorce played out. I hope this lady doesn’t plan to stay in California. Get as far away from him as she can with the kids. He can travel to visit. She needs to build her own life away from his sphere of influence if she’s strong enough. I don’t think she can let the lifestyle go.
    And that will make life very hard for this young lady.

  14. Ameerah M says:

    The deadline is in October but that means it has to be completed by that date. Honestly – I think the issue is that she CAN’T come up with a real reason why the prenup should be invalidated. Because she doesn’t really have one. She signed a sh*tty prenup. And I wonder if she had a lawyer look at it before she signed it. If she did not – that MAY be an argument. But I don’t think it’s one that will hold up in court because she was an adult when she signed it. And if she did have a lawyer she could possibly argue that her lawyer didn’t advocate for her best interests – but that’s a big question mark.

    • Mimi says:

      She had lawyers review the prenup–that was in his court filings (that there is no basis to claim now that she didn’t understand what the word “understand” means, being that her lawyers who represented her would have explained to her what the terms meant). She seems to be outlawyered here. She was, perhaps, counting on the sympathy of the court.

    • Becks1 says:

      And that’s part of the issue right now – she’s not saying that she didn’t have a lawyer (the other day some on here said she did) or that her lawyer didn’t advocate for her. She’s just saying it should be nullified. Costner’s team is trying to get her to say WHY it should be nullified – did she not understand it, did she sign it under duress, etc. And she’s not answering those questions. His team can’t prepare a defense if she’s not answering those questions, and she’s going to have to answer them.

      • Lorelei says:

        Do we know if the lawyer who advised her when she signed the prenup was affiliated with Kevin in any way, or someone she hired independently who would sincerely look after only HER best interests? Because if that was not the case and the attorney who was supposedly hers was actually sort of “loaned” to her from Kevin’s team, that’s the only way I can see challenging this prenup.
        (And even then, idk how good her chances would be at prevailing, since she was an adult when she signed it and should have known to hire her own counsel.)

      • Becks1 says:

        I mean, I would think if she had one of his lawyers loaned to her for this, that would be the FIRST argument, right? They would have immediately gone with that, right? none of this stuff about “understand” not being defined to their liking or whatever. So I’m assuming she had her own independent lawyer.

        But then again, her lawyers right now seem kind of incompetent, so maybe she didn’t have her own and they’re just not making that argument for some unknown reason.

  15. Jaded says:

    Even though Mr. Jaded’s ex-wife was the one who suddenly pulled the plug on their marriage in an extremely malicious way, then spent the next 7 years trying to get him back, he was very generous to her in the divorce settlement. That’s what good people do.

    • Libra says:

      I’ve been thinking about your post for a while now, and I agree that being generous is taking the high road but 2 thoughts come to mind; if he went over and above the terms of the prenup wouldn’t he be invalidating the prenup himself, thereby opening the door for her to have it thrown out? Also, if he’s now going to rewrite the prenuptial terms by offering a different settlement, what was the point of having a prenuptial at all?

  16. desi says:

    I don’t know… I’m going to be the lone voice and say she’s out of line. She signed the pre-nup and filed for divorce. She should just abide by its terms. If she’s done with the marriage, just get out of it. Trying to extract something isn’t cool. On what basis? It’s not like he’s planning to abandon his children and stop buying them things and paying for activities and education. Yeesh. What he doesn’t want to do is pay for her goddamn facials or something. And he shouldn’t. They are ceasing their martial relationship

    • Josephine says:

      The general theory of marital dissolution is that he (and their kids) benefitted from her unpaid labor and that she should therefore be compensated. It’s dangerous to set up a standard where the spouse who doesn’t work outside the home should walk away with nothing. I think ultimately she’ll lose because of the prenup but pretending that he doesn’t morally/ethically owe her is just wrong.

  17. CJT says:

    I sort of feel that she was trying to achieve a version of the now famous “Katie Holmes wam bam, ambush” divorce she and her father orchestrated with Tom Cruise. Unfortunately, she’s already falling short of that stealth divorce. But then again, she signed a better prenup.

  18. Elizabeth says:

    Sorry I can’t see why you’re saying he’s on the warpath. She signed the agreement, what’s the problem. After 15years maybe she should get more but if he doesn’t want to pay her more, then oh well. I think this line of thinking that the woman is always right, is wrong. Nothing that I’ve seen says he was abusive, a ego maniac, maybe but I’m sure he was like that before she happily married him and signed that agreement.

    • AnneL says:

      19 years.

      I’m not saying he was abusive either or anything, but I would bet money he’s an egomaniac.

  19. Twin Falls says:

    The but she signed a contract…saw the Barbie movie but didn’t see the Barbie movie.

  20. Veronica S. says:

    Eh…she may have shot herself in the foot with this one. If she wanted to divorce, she knew the prenup was in place and should have been prepared for that likely being the only payout she was getting. Unless there was abuse or something else going on in the home, sometimes that is the price of getting out of a relationship that doesn’t fulfill you anymore. You have to sacrifice the assets the came with it, however unfair that may seem.

    The system isn’t fair to spouses who give up their careers for their partners, which is usually women, but that is part of the risk of marrying somebody with a huge financial advantage over you. Money is power in America, and you have to be prepared for what that means.

  21. Haylie says:

    Some things things come to mind:

    1. Don’t marry someone who asks you to sign a bad prenup. If he’s not willing to negotiate the terms before the marriage, it’s a football field of red flags.

    2. Foresight. I know that’s hard when you’re (checks notes) 29 and in love, but even 19 years ago in California, 1.5 million wouldn’t be enough to buy a home, maintain a home, and financially support kids outside of court ordered child support in the wealthy zip codes in California in the event of a divorce. He was essentially offering a few crumbs above the “you leave with what you came with” prenup. And she signed it.

    3. Never, and I mean NEVER, marry a man who asks you to sign a prenup that does not provide for you, AND plan to be a housewife, especially if he insists on you staying at home. That’s a setup.

  22. Chiara_Boss says:

    Writers here always portray her as a victim. And that her mothering 3 children with Costner makes her some sort of angel above all the earthly affairs. So far from what is reported about the divorce she is at best ignorant and at worst not that bright.
    She is painted as some Fantine level of damsel in distress about to be thrown out at the curb with no means to survive. PMA doesn’t mean she will be left without any spousal or child support.
    Also being married for 19 years who’s been making so much money she had all the resources available to get education and profession.
    She also could’ve invested that 1,5 million dollars 19 years ago and be in a pretty sweet spot by now.
    She just doesn’t seem like very practical or smart.
    She did choose to poke a bear without having a safety plan.
    As to the Costner – he might be an asshole (sadly one of hundred thousands) who didn’t understand the concept of massage, and sexually harassed the worker back in 2006. For which he was rightfully dragged through the mud and made to pay. But it can’t alone be a thing that defines him. As hard as it is to say for me as I’ve worked as a masseuse for couple of years, and had about 5% of cases in which men thought that sexual relief is included that made me deeply uncomfortable.
    I might be missing out something, but from the way this divorce is unfolding she seems to be the messy one.