Kevin Costner and Christine Baumgartner’s divorce is certainly one of the messiest celebrity divorces we’ve seen in a while. This one is not being adjudicated quietly by some private judge or mediator. It’s spilling out in open family court, with their lawyers dueling in legal filings. I’m still rooting for Christine, but I think she’s going to get reamed when it comes to nullifying the prenup. Which is probably why she’s arguing that she needs much more in child support:
Kevin Costner’s getting off easy paying $129k per month in child support … according to Christine Baumgartner who wants that number increased to ensure their kids keep living large when they’re with her.
Christine filed docs, obtained by TMZ, asking the court to reconsider the amount of child support Kevin pays due to 2 factors — 1. making sure the kids enjoy the same lifestyle with both parents, and 2. what she’s learned about how much money Kevin’s been making. She lays it out in the docs, explaining their 4 children live in a beach compound with their dad that’s worth between $65 million and $95 mil … and they also fly private on luxury vacations with Kevin.
You’ll recall, Kevin took the kids to Aspen last month — right after Christine had them in Hawaii. She says Kevin needs to pay sufficient child support “so that the children can go on comparable vacations when they are with her. This is true even if the child support payments also improve Christine’s lifestyle.”
Christine says that’s simply the standard required by California family code. Based on that alone, she says the $129k/month won’t cut it, and she’s instead estimating $175,057/month. And by the way, Christine says that’s a deal because that higher amount “will not be sufficient to replicate Kevin’s lifestyle, but it will be sufficient to allow her to provide a lifestyle for the children which is relatively comparable.”
Now, as for Kevin’s income … she says his average cash flow for the last 2 years was $19,248,467 each year, or more than $1.6 million each month. Based on them having 50/50 custody of the kids, she claims California guidelines require Kevin to pay that $175k/mo. she’s requesting.
By the letter of the law, she’s correct. There’s a formula to how child support is calculated, and while it seems downright silly, the court absolutely takes into account “parents should be able to give their kids comparable vacations.” While Christine’s calculations are for Kevin’s previous income, while he was on Yellowstone, his finances are probably going to take a hit now that he’s left a popular and lucrative series. So… it’s really up to the court to figure it out. Meanwhile, Christine and Kevin are also arguing about affairs:
Kevin Costner, in new divorce court documents, says he did not have an affair while adding that he “does not know for a fact” whether estranged wife Christine did. Ahead of an upcoming hearing on child support and the November trial to determine the validity of their premarital agreement, Christine’s attorneys are asking for more documentation proving Kevin’s finances.
As an exhibit in her latest request for order, obtained by PEOPLE, Christine’s attorneys included Kevin’s lawyers responding to asks from his estranged wife’s side, including one regarding any “expenses paid by you, or any person at your request or on your behalf, relating to any extramarital romantic relationships.”
Kevin, 68, objected to the request as his legal team wrote that it is “propounded only for purposes of harassment, is overbroad as to time period and subject matter, burdensome, oppressive and impermissibly compound.” They added that the request is seeking information “not relevant to the subject matter” since “there is no community property” between them in this split.
Additionally, they argued, that Kevin “does not know for a fact if [Christine] engaged in any ‘extramarital romantic relationships’ before separation and, if so, whether she spent any of his money or charged any expenses in furtherance of her affair(s) on credit cards he paid.” His side added, “[Kevin] has no responsive documents for ‘extramarital romantic relationships’ in which he engaged because he engaged in none.”
LOL. This is why Christine hired that forensic accountant (and charged it to Kevin’s credit card). She wanted a better idea of what kind of money he has, and whether he’s lying about this or that. I have no idea if Costner was cheating (if past is prologue, well…) and I have no idea if Christine was cheating, but holy sh-t, this is so deliciously messy. Costner really should have just given her an eight-figure settlement and one of his 10 houses and called it a day.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
-
- Christine Baumgartner, Kevin Costner at arrivals for HIDDEN FIGURES Screening, The School of Visual Arts (SVA) Theatre, New York, NY December 10, 2016.,Image: 512870046, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Photoshot – sales@photoshot.com London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Dennis Van Tine / Avalon
-
- 132472, Kevin Costner, Christine Baumgartner attends the premiere of ‘McFarland USA’ in Los Angeles on Monday, February 9th, 2015.,Image: 531254209, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS, DIRECT SALES ONLY UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN CAPTION – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: PacificCoastNews / Avalon
-
- “The Art of Racing in the Rain” World Premiere at the El Capitan Theater on August 1, 2019 in Los Angeles, CA Featuring: Grace Avery Costner, Kevin Costner, Cayden Wyatt Costner, Christine Baumgartner, Hayes Logan Costner Where: Los Angeles, California, United States When: 02 Aug 2019 **ONLY AVAILABLE FOR SPAIN & USA**,Image: 536804849, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: USA and SPAIN DIRECT SALES ONLY – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: WENN / Wenn / Avalon
-
- Actor Kevin Costner and wife Christine Baumgartner arrive at the Los Angeles Premiere Of 20th Century Fox’s ‘The Art Of Racing In The Rain’ held at the El Capitan Theatre on August 1, 2019 in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 536804997, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289 – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency / Image Press Agency / Avalon
-
- Kevin Costner and Christine Baumgartner arrive on the red carpet of the 94th Oscars® at the Dolby Theatre at Ovation Hollywood in Los Angeles, CA, on Sunday, March 27, 2022.,Image: 673507539, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: ©A.M.P.A.S. All rights reserved., Model Release: no, Credit line: Valerie Durant / Avalon
-
- Christine Baumgartner and Kevin Costner arrive on the red carpet of the 94th Oscars® at the Dolby Theatre at Ovation Hollywood in Los Angeles, CA, on Sunday, March 27, 2022.,Image: 673541629, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Avalon Licensing Ltd. do not claim any Copyright of the attached image WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533, Model Release: no, Credit line: Avalon.red / Avalon
-
- Christine Baumgartner and Kevin Costner arrive on the red carpet of the 94th Oscars® at the Dolby Theatre at Ovation Hollywood in Los Angeles, CA, on Sunday, March 27, 2022.,Image: 673541661, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Avalon Licensing Ltd. do not claim any Copyright of the attached image WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533, Model Release: no, Credit line: Avalon.red / Avalon
-
- Los Angeles, CA – Christine arrived by limousine at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and is met by a woman presumed to be her lawyer. Pictured: Christine Baumgartner BACKGRID USA 5 JULY 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- Los Angeles, CA – Christine arrived by limousine at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and is met by a woman presumed to be her lawyer. Pictured: Christine Baumgartner BACKGRID USA 5 JULY 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
Her lawyers are not very good imo. They are casting a wide net to see what it brings in but that’s not allowed in the law. The amount they are asking for in child support actually seems reasonable to me, but casting about and hoping for some revelation about an affair is not the way to go about it and I suspect the judge is not going to go for that.
Honestly, it sounds like she went into this with bad or not enough information. She seems just as money driven as Kevin Costner.
Can’t stand the man so the more she can wring from him the better. You’d think in2023 that a husband would appreciate a wife who raises their kids 99% of the time.
There should be a special place in hell for people who relegate the mother of their children to “the help” status. Same goes for people who do this to their in-laws and even their own parents
She was less than that – she had to use staff cards to make some purchases that would be considered large by anyone who wasn’t in that tax bracket
This just furthers the gross, “what’s mine is mine” narrative he’s putting out; “there’s no community property”??? Idk how his kids are going to feel about him implying that the only way she could’ve contributed to their marriage is monetarily and they have no shared property.
He is coming off so bad here, I was a fan but I just can’t separate his acting now from the petty controlling vindictive jerk we’re seeing.
He thinks he’s untouchable, that all this bad publicity won’t affect him.
The worst part that stands out to me is that he is perfectly willing to punish his ex wife at his kids expense. He doesn’t care how they live when they’re with her. Doesn’t even pretend that he wants their lives to be as uninterrupted as possible.
I think she has bad representation as well and I think she would have gotten a bigger settlement if this weren’t playing out so publicly. At this point he has no reason to give her a settlement and can reasonably argue that she is trying to damage his reputation and therefore livelihood.
He just be a real prick to have tolerated all these years because she is over it.
@ Peony, this didn’t become a public spectacle until Costner started blasting her all over SM. As for Christine, she does need better counsel along with a more realistic judge who is still dragging his knuckles across the ground as he hasn’t been informed as to what century it is.
For reference, the filing of divorce became public once TWZ gained access to her filing.
The lack of respect he has shown her is just galling. He acts like she should be grateful for any little crumb he gives her. She worked just as hard as he did to build the life they’ve had for the last 19 years. Her contribution was the sweat equity (running the house, raising the children, look good on his arm at publicity events) that allowed him to go off to do whatever he wanted. This was a partnership and she deserves to be compensated fairly for her contributions.
she definitely contributed, but I would not say she worked as hard as he did lol. this isn’t your average SAHM situation – she had nannies, housekeepers, a full household staff, all while not working. certainly she was raising her kids and attending events with him, etc, but it’s not quite equivalent.
Even with nannies she carried and gave birth to those children. She’s their mother. Let’s stop devaluing her simply because she has help. Because guess what? He has all of that help too – he’s the father. Who has a nannies, household staff, and assistant, housekeepers, etc. too. HE benefited from help as well.
@ Arizona, have you ever had to be the sole caretaker of 3 young children with a spouse that would frequently pop home for a little break and then disappear for months on end?? If not, you should look at ALL of the sacrifices that Christine has made….
For a SOLID 19 years, Christine kept a loving, caring and supportive home life for not only the children but for Costner as well!! Costner came and went as he pleased without a a second thought knowing full well that Christine had kept his children happy, healthy and was a fully devoted mother!! Costner was not involved in the day to day care of his children as his career came FIRST!!! Costner was able to build this enormous WEALTH due to the sacrifices that Christine made, NOT Kevin.
Re the discussions of did she work just as hard as he did for those millions….
Who says he was working hard? He’s not that great of an actor. Who even knows if he genuinely memorized his lines or if they were fed to him one by one?
Shagging in the trailer might be the most work some people do on set 🙁
This entire situation irks me.
Yes, he sure seems to be an asshole and I have sympathy for the wife, who is just trying to get what the law says she is entitled to.
But the #s are all so high on both sides that it just gives me a headache.
She’s going to get more in a month than most american families gross in a year. And he is fighting her on it, despite being worth 400million, an amount that he couldn’t possibly spend before he dies as he is nearly 70.
I suppose I am just jealous of people who have more money than they know what to do with.
Why is she NOT getting at least that? What am I missing? In NY, a non-custodial parent pays 17% for each child, up to 33% of their income (if there are multiple children). If he’s earning multiple millions, she gets to her number very easily. (Yes, I know he’s asking for/getting 50/50 custody, but $179,000 a month seems a small amount compared to what he actually makes.)
If she’s smart, this was all a negotiation ploy—pay me as close to the $229,000 a month I asked for and I’ll back off from contesting the pre-nup.
I think part of the problem is that is what he WAS making, but he’s off Yellowstone (I think?) so he will be making drastically less very shortly.
he’ll still be insanely wealthy.
@ Arizona, it doesn’t matter!!! They rely on his previous returns PLUS the MF’er has an estimated wealth of $400M dollars!!!!
Judges calculate based on qualified documents are from his tax returns.
I don’t know why you are simplifying and degrading Christina’s contributions with the same mindset as Costner. Christine raised those children so that Costner could work as he knew his children were cared for with the utmost care and love that Christine showered them with.
Wow, that’s an interesting tactic on his part – smearing her by announcing he has no evidence that she was cheating on him. Yes, no evidence, but let’s put out the idea into the public’s head.
I am a firm believer in prenups. Unless modified during the course of the marriage it should be upheld. Period. In this case she sold herself cheap and failed to take care of business to insure she got what she should if the marriage failed. All bets are off if the couple doesn’t have one and their should be no cap on the amount the spouse goes after. Who says the over the top vacations won’t continue? They may, but she probably wont be going. I cannot assume he won’t take care of his children.
I agree with you . They can still go on vacations that most people couldn’t think about. If they go to private school, he’s still going to pay for their school. If they have expensive hobbies/ clubs/memberships he’ll still pay for them. To me the gist of it is that he doesn’t want to pay FOR HER. I wouldn’t have signed that pre-nup, I’ll be your girlfriend, maybe have a baby but I won’t marry you if you can’t come come up with better numbers than that. Also, if I can’t have access to the finances, I’ll stay single and keep my job. If you don’t want to give me money or have to account for everything, why should I accept that? The writing was on the wall with this cheapskate, she just chose not to see it.
Exactly. I wouldn’t have either.
See, this whole “ ironclad prenup” thing in US law is bonkers to me. But then again, I’m Australian where our version of that type of document, while binding, is really easily notified by court, if the parties, circumstances change in ways that would render it incompatible with other aspects of in
Australian family law. Basically , this exact situation (20 year plus relationship, marriage producing children who are still minors) there is almost no way the document would be upheld in the form it was signed.
Very similar in Canada, AprilUnderwater. And if she didn’t get a fair piece of the property because of the prenup, she’d be getting buckets of spousal support even after the kids were grown.
Still team no one over here. This is gross. I’m the product of divorced parents and I have practiced divorce law. Comparable vacations is not a thing. Imagine the monsters this kind of parenting will create.
This 100%. She should have tried to go with the kids “emotional and psychological needs” of having very different experiences in living situations while also dealing with the divorce. It can really be an emotional shock of it all playing out in public. Also parental alienation if he uses his money to gain favor and more time from this kids. That but the ” if he goes to Hawaii I want to go to Hawaii and I want a private jet” sounded tone deaf and kinda proved him right that this isn’t about the kids but I about her own payout to keep the same lifestyle she has now. I think she deserves more I really do but her lawyers are terrible and he approach clumsy. Kevin is hurt and doesn’t feel like being kind to her after she tried to strong arm new terms and went to Hawaii with his friend (affair or no affair) but this is the mother of his kids and has the ability to move on and allow her some dignity to live well. I don’t believe she was financially abused during the marriage I think she was abused via neglect but I do think she is being abused financially now and making co-parenting much harder. with all that said I hope with time they can co-parent and put this behind them because they are a family no matter what shape its in.
I’m a firm believer in re-evaluating a prenup depending on circumstances.
Christine and Kevin started dating in 1998, got married in 2004, and she filed for divorce this spring. That’s almost 2 decades of marriage and a quarter century spent together. The prenup she signed allows her 1.5 million of Kevin’s 400 million-dollar fortune plus child support. Over the course of their marriage we’ve learned that she owned very little: Kevin freaked out because she actually BOUGHT a car instead of leasing one. She, as stated aboved, borrowed the STAFF’s credit cards. Kevin is running to all sorts of publications (TMZ, People, PageSix, and US Weekly) with giving them access to “sources” to get out his side of the story. Christine has been the parent who’s mostly taken care of THEIR children.
If Kevin and Christine had a Britney-Spears-length relationship or marriage, yes, I completely understand enforcing the prenup. I don’t here. In order to participate in his/ their family’s lifestyle, she was kept financially dependent on Kevin. For instance, a man with millions of dollars should not be having a hissy fit about buying a car, but Kevin is. He did not initially want to divorce. Now it looks like he financially abused her, and since that she’s leaving, he’s going after her in other ways as well. She should fight for a bit more than the prenup allows. And I agree that it doesn’t look good for her.
He wouldn’t even let her BUY a car? What was she thinking when she married him, he’s awful and the people who worked for him were treated with more respect than she was. It’s like she was a possession for him to maintain and admire and when he got tired of it, he could get rid of it without any ties. WTF???!!!
@mel That is why people get prenups. To be able to leave the marriage and protect their assets if the other one wants to leave with half their stuff. She was no kid. She was like 30 when they married and it was her ultimatum to him that if he wants to be with her she wants kids and marriage or she is out. He didn’t want her to break up with him. This is why he wanted the prenup and he isn’t the one that got sick of her and even wanted her back. You know why I know this. Because I knew her family since high school. My mom knows her mom kinda of stuff. Her mom worked at my high school as well. Still I feel she should get more because it clear that she was a good wife and mother and just wanted to find her own happiness once she felt the marriage wasn’t worth saving. These are adults making decisions.
I’ve seen the comment about the car posted numerous times as proof of his controlling nature, and I’m surprised no one has made this point, but rich people don’t buy cars, they lease. Buying a car is a notoriously bad investment, and I highly doubt she was buying a small, economical car she planned on keeping for years on end. Wanting the family to lease their cars rather than purchase seems more financially prudent, not necessarily the same thing as being financially abusive.
@Yesgril. I get that’s what the prenup is for. Frankly, that prenup as it was written showed her who he is and she chose not to believe it. She should have negotiated for a better deal for herself or have been prepared to a) maintain the status quo or b) walk. I’m sorry but she knowingly backed herself into that corner, now she’s scratching and flailing to get out of it. I don’t believe that she’ll succeed. The best she can hope for is that he’ll get tired and give her a few things to make her go away. I doubt it though, he has the money and the time to drag this out forever and all she’ll get is legal fees.
@YesGirl- Soooo, you’re saying you *actually* have no real clue about the details except for possibly what your gossipy mum said? Because somehow she knows all about it from Christine’s mum who would have been foolish enough to talk about her daughter’s supposed grift outside of family? A game of telephone where the source can’t be verified anyhow, perhaps? Um-hmm. Excuse me, I need to go grab my magic beans to show you. 🙄
It’s not just the fact that she bought (as opposed to leased) a car. As to rich people and purchasing vs leasing: it depends on the rich person. I know of rich people here who own multiple cars and they do not lease all of them.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/brides/498307/kevin-costner-and-ex-christine-bickering-over-kitchen-utensils-newly-released-court-papers-reveal/?viewas=amp
A quote from that article: “Her wish list included pots and pans, a dog bed, a beach umbrella, a juicer, and an exercise bike.”
I find it absolutely amazing that those items on her wish list are either a “no” from Kevin or need his expressed written approval. I also think it’s beyond trashy to evict Christine weeks after she filed. I also think it’s incredibly trashy for a multitmillionaire who owns several homes to get nitpicky about kitchen utensils.
@Moon: Does it help that Costner gave an interview to Closer Weekly where he said pretty much that story? Costner and Baumgartner dated for a long time, he resisted getting married because she wanted kids, he didn’t want more, they briefly split and he initiated a reconciliation. With the rest of it a matter of public record with the preup and whatnot
https://www.closerweekly.com/posts/kevin-costner-fatherhood-162429/
@Moontheloon I get the name LOL. I said that’s how I know her and her mom. Do your research they both talked about it openly when they were planning the wedding. Its no secret. What part triggered you that I know her family ? She openly talked about how important it was for her to marry and have kids and that it was a deal breaker at her own shower. I thought it was pretty bad ass of her to be honest. That she wasn’t going to give that up if he really wanted to be with her. Life is messy.
So she assumed that she would be better off married to him than just being the girlfriend or the partner with the baby. She might have been better off as the partner with the baby and going for palimony. He probably would have had her sign something then also. Dude was NOT going to part with his money without a fight, she hedged her bets and went the wrong way.
This is an embarrassment at his age and status. Despite some missteps in his personal life, he’s always been perceived as a “good” guy. The fact that he’s ruining decades of that for a few million that he can afford is absurd. He should have given her and the kids enough to live on and continued with his life. He has tons of money. What more does he need? He’s acting like a d*ck.
I always thought he seemed like a douche.
I got irrationally annoyed with him after watching the “Hatfield And McCoys” mini-series, which I believe he helped produce. He played the Hatfield patriarch. The show really tried to portray his character as reasonable, a sort of noble frontiersman protecting his family, while McCoy was self-righteous and stubborn. They even showed Hatfield’s wife being hot for him when he got back from the war, while McCoy’s only submitted to her husband out of duty. Sure, Jan.
I read a detailed account of the feud and they really misrepresented how it all went down. Both sides did bad things but the Hatfields were a pretty nasty bunch. I definitely came away from the book thinking they were worse and the McCoy family suffered a lot more because of it.
He’s nearly 70 years old, divorce No. 1 cost him $80 million and now has 7 children that he likely wants to leave some kind of inheritance to (plus whatever charities he wants to support in his will). He clearly has a vision for how he wants his assets distributed, which is among the reasons why he had her sign the prenup in the first place.
Ha ha you implied he would be donating his millions to charity.
If he did – I would totally expect it to be the Men Going Their Own Way movement.
Goggle that for a good laugh.
I get her point but it seems a bit transparent to suggest that you aren’t able to manage a vacation within the court established amount.
I maybe looking at this wrong, but this woman doesn’t strike me as good role model or a person who advocates for anyone other than herself.
I understand we are all eyeballing what Kevin’s doing monetarily for his kids or what he should be doing pre nup or not. He agreed to health insurance and school. I’m sure if the kids have needs he will ensure his kids will not go without.
Here’s my question.
What is she doing about her obligations?
Has she gotten a job?
Has she started designing bags again?
Has she enrolled in school?
What has she done to provide for her children other than whine and run to court to bitch and beg she didn’t understand a prenup she signed that was reviewed by her attorney?
Really?
I think if you want to leave you can’t expect the partner you are leaving to fund your new life in perpituity. That is what the prenup, that she signed, is designed to prevent. That young lady needs to put in some work. Positive the the lawyers and the Court will find an acceptable number for the care of the kids.
Without knowing the intimate circumstances of her life and theirs together, you definitely are looking at it wrong. There’s no “just getting a job” anymore when you’ve been steadily employed and remain perfectly qualified. Never mind when you’ve spent the past 20 years as the stay at home wife to an extremely famous man. That ish follows you even after you’ve left them. School is also not an instant thing where you walk up, ask for credentials and presto you have it. Very few stay at home partners wish to be perpetually funded by their ex’s. It’s demoralising as is, then you get judgment like this from people who should mind their own backyards. Then there’s whatever degradation your ex subjects you to because they hate paying for you. Pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps isn’t always the solution and the assumption that even a seemingly affluent woman who spent the last 20 years as a stay at home spouse could is quite ignorant.
Agree mamasan! She is a spoiled brat and was fine with this jerk decades until she wasn’t. She wasn’t financially abused ffs! She wanted a lifestyle she could provide and didn’t want to work or live small and now thinks she can tear up the pre nup and is so special the law doesn’t apply to her. The mental gymnastics people are doing to make her a victim is insane here. So she might have to fly first class instead of a private on a luxury vacation that cost more than most people earn in a year? Omg what a victim!! She is entitled, spoiled brat, and will be richer than almost anyone else on the planet.
She designed bags? Missed opportunity to use him to help her build a business and her own income as to not be dependent on someone who wasn’t interested in sharing his wealth with her.
That’s exactly what she did. The label started in 2004 and she told the Denver Post in 2005 that Costner helped launch the brand.
https://www.denverpost.com/2005/10/18/cat-bags-laptop-cases-replace-geek-with-chic/
Exactly. I don’t feel sorry for her one bit. She sounds like a monster, financially.
Based on the comments here, Costner is paying a small fortune for PR. I can’t believe there is anyone who sides with him…
The internal misogyny is punching and shouting from within the house. While the rest of us have a dumbfounded look on our faces.
Uhhh.. what? SHE wanted to be his wife so badly that SHE KNOWINGLY signed a prenup that screwed her over. You may not like it but that’s what it is and guess what, she has to deal with the terms SHE agreed to. Do I think he’s cheap AF? Yes, but do I think she’s a victim? No. She chose to believe that she could get around the prenup and then shame him into backing down. People with assets to protect don’t do that. NONE of you would do that. She allowed him to treat her this way for years just to say she was Mrs. Costner. She made the choice now she has to face the consequences of that decision. He is not depriving is children of anything, he’s going to give HER what she agreed to take for herself. He showed her who he is, she didn’t believe him.
Mel, We absolutely think differently about this. Many people agree with you on the prenup, that she dug her own grave by signing it.
I see the prenup more like a legal, but bad contract for the amount of time they were married and it should be able to be broken. Marriage is a contract. Thankfully if things change (ie, god forbid your partner become abusive!), you can legally break that contract. In the case of this prenup, it doesn’t matter how long she was/ wasn’t married. No matter what, she is entitled to 1.5 million dollars. Kids, time, changing circumstances? Same deal.
Kevin was presumably honest about the prenup—we don’t know how he treated her in real life as opposed to what the prenup warned her would happen if they got divorced. If I was in love with someone, if they chased after me after I walked away and said they changed their minds about kids and marriage, I hope I wouldn’t be stupid enough to sign a legally binding document like she did. However, say he’s treating her wonderfully at this point—can you understand why you might believe the person in front of you as opposed to the words on paper?
In most divorces I know, people walk away with property because there isn’t a prenup and they need to split things. In most cases, the woman winds up poorer, especially if she has kids. In Christine’s case, this prenup has her walking away with fewer possessions and assets than normal.
Kevin wanted her out within weeks of the divorce—the desire might be normal, but enforcing it isn’t. Not many 70-year-old millionaires are so effing petty they need to hive you written permission to leave with a divorce g bed or kitchen utensils or freak out because you own a car. There is little communal property after 25 years together for them to split. Sure, she’s due 1.5 million if the prenup is enforced, but again, this would have to cover her housing, her transportation, her food and other expenses—everything but the kids, who she didn’t have when she thought she loved the guy who married her.
A few generations back, divorce was nearly impossible for women. It was considered a nearly impossible-to-break contract, just like this prenup seems to be.
Correction: Not many millionaires are so petty they need to give you written permission to leave with a dog bed or kitchen utensils or freak out because you own a car.
@ML, that’s not how contracts work. You can’t break them just because you now think the terms are unfair when they’re actually enforced. Trying to renegotiate is usually a tactic. If you’re going to try to break a contract, you better make sure that you have plenty of money in your war chest because you will need it to fight it out. He never let her have a cent of her own ( at least that’s what it sounds like ) and she accepted it. The time to try and fix the contract was when everything was good, not when everything has gone south. As I said, he has the resources to drag this on until the end of time, and she’ll just end up in debt. He obviously does NOT care about how he looks, he cares about keeping his money. She needs lawyers who can rethink their strategy where she at least ends up breaking even.
Mel, I live in the NLs. Here you can choose to have a prenup or have a marriage where all assets are split. If you choose for the prenup, children (child support) and alimony cannot be part of the prenup—it’s only to cover property and to make sure that debts aren’t split. So here, part of all the isht CB is going through would not be an issue. KC couldn’t have that whole set up. It would probably be a lot less than in the states, but he would have to pay her alimony and it seems like he doesn’t in the US. Someone from Australia also mentioned that changing circumstances would lead to changing the prenup there. Here, the prenup wouldn’t be changed in regards to his real estate or debts, but he couldn’t get away with forcing her out of the house like he did, for instance. To me it seems bizarrely punitive and borderline illegal on his part and while she most likely won’t be able to break it, but she should be able to.
If you think you have signed an unfair contract, you should try to fight it if you can.
@ML child support usually isn’t part of prenups in the US either (I don’t think its allowed to be?) In my state, child support can be re-evaluated at any time.
Here, based on what I’m reading, the child support argument should be separate from the pre-nup (and it actually is), but the two discussions are getting mixed in the press. My interpretation of what is happening is that Kevin is trying to argue that Christine is using child support to make up for the prenup, even if he’s not using those words.
That’s why there was that back and forth a few weeks ago about how she was listing things like facials as part of the reason she needed so much in child support.
And for your last point – the US POV is that if she thought it was an unfair contract, the time to fight it was before she signed it. There are ways to get out of contracts, our contract law is not ironclad over here (although it generally is state law so varies state by state), but prenups are different, since the entire point of a prenup is to prepare for those changing circumstances and protect the assets (ideally of both parties, but this was obviously very one sided.)
Agreed
I agree with all of you as well, Toocan ANJ, MoonTheLoon, and Ula1010. Horrifying.
I just came to say that this is the 2nd time I’ve seen an article say they have 4 children, but they still have just 3.
I read the article about them “arguing over cooking utensils” and it seems misleading. Unless I somehow missed the part that expanded on that. It sounds like, per the pre-nup she is allowed to take her own personal items like toiletries, clothes, and jewelry, but anything else, they have to agree on. Now, do I think it is reasonable to assume that he will NOT be reasonable on that front? Yes. I think that is a very reasonable assumption. But so far it sounds like she sent him a list of what she wants, and nothing noted in the article was anything crazy. It was things like a beach umbrella and dog bed, not an original Renoir. i suppose it makes him sound petty but so far it doesn’t sound like he said no to her taking utensils.
Gosh…I REALLY don’t want to come across as defending him. I’m not. I just think that all this “they are fighting over utensils” is an exaggeration. It’s probably more an issue that she can’t just empty the entire house, and unless there are only 3 items that he cares about, it’s easier for the “rule” to apply to everything. I don’t think this is unusual.
Is this site devoid of women who have actually been married 20+ years, raised kids and maintained a career??? Certainly that is not a rarity? I am not a rarity in my circle but damned, is this a unicorn on this site?
Me! You’re not alone. 23years, 3children, the last of which started college last week virtually because of course he caught Covid after 3 years of never getting it, 1 dog, 3 cats, my Mom and some sad fish.
I worked as a lawyer for the first ten years of my marriage, including for eight years after our first kid was born. After that I worked on a volunteer basis and did some real estate and on-line sales. So I sort of fit the description, but not exactly since there were stretches where I was solely focused on the kids, house, etc.
That said, I still feel like Costner is being petty. Mostly about the house. Making her leave so quickly after she filed, even though they had shared the home for their whole marriage and raised their kids there? When he has multiple houses? I get that he wants to leave money to his children but that just seems unduly punitive.
This site defends the dimwit trophy wife who deserves alimony for life or the women who married men later and defend not having children. Are there no women on their first marriages, with careers and raising children who (gasp) take their kids to church but teach tolerance? Only rich SAHM with no talent are tolerated but only if they are not religious? Not religious moms who actually have careers who adore their husbands? Honestly, what is it?
What does religion have to do with any of this? Did I miss something where their spiritual life was discussed and Christine was deemed better because she’s not religious? For all I know she goes to church regularly.
Your comment makes no sense. Costner is a cheap tyrant who I’m sure cheated on Christine. She’d had enough and filed for divorce. The fact that he immediately tried to kick her out of the marital home says it all, and his attempts to leave her penniless except for child support is abhorrent. Leave religion out of it. In no way are we defending a *dimwit trophy wife*, we’re defending the mother of his 3 children who is being shafted.
Is there not a career mom on the site is the wrong question. The right questions is how many happy career moms are there who are married to a guy that 100% equally shares the house and kid scut and recognizes that her career advancement is just as legitimate and important as his own is. That dude is the unicorn.
I can put this link in, but there are so many others like this one.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/the-difference-between-a-happy-marriage-and-miserable-one-chores/273615/
Dude. Giselle and her millions couldn’t even make this equation pan out.