A few days ago, I saw that Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan were heading back to court, years after they filed for divorce, but I figured it was nothing serious. I was wrong – it is serious. The general timeline: Jenna and Channing met circa 2005-06. They married in 2009 and announced their separation in April 2018. They filed for divorce in October 2018. Before now, I never realized that they had yet to finalize everything and that they’re still working out some big issues. It turns out the drama is the money, specifically Channing’s Magic Mike franchise/property. Jenna and Channing are going back to court because Jenna believes that Channing has screwed her out of money, given that he developed Magic Mike while they were married.
Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum are at odds over divvying up Magic Mike earnings nearly six years after their breakup. In recent court filings, the exes called on each other and more to testify as witnesses in their ongoing divorce proceedings, with a new sticking point involving profits from the Magic Mike movies, which Dewan’s lawyers describe as Tatum’s “big break.”
Magic Mike, and the film’s eventual “extremely lucrative” offshoots, were “developed and co-financed by Channing during marriage with community effort and marital funds,” her side argues. Since the original Magic Mike, which Tatum starred in and produced, debuted in theaters in 2012, sequels came out in 2015 and 2023. In addition, a spin-off reality TV series aired in 2021, and a popular live Magic Mike attraction has been staged in Las Vegas.
Dewan, 43, alleges that Tatum, 43, and his associates “created a complex web of LLCs, holding companies, and partnerships” as a way to “dilute and conceal the value of, and licensing income therefrom, the community property share of Magic Mike intellectual property.” Asking for a separate trial to figure out how to accurately divide assets in their divorce, Dewan’s legal team said they aim to prove Tatum allegedly “colluded” to “shelter” Magic Mike income from her.
Tatum adamantly disputes this in his filings, saying he “never denied Petitioner of her share of the community assets or income.”
In response to Dewan’s filing, Tatum’s lawyers lamented that they have yet to reach a divorce settlement after five years and they need to schedule it for trial without a “last-minute” postponement. They say Tatum has “exhausted all efforts in an attempt to settle this matter without litigation.”
While his Magic Mike enterprise began during their marriage, Tatum’s lawyers say he “continued to create and develop [it] since separation.” He “expended extensive efforts since separation towards the enhancement of the Magic Mike intellectual property and related entities, which [Tatum] contends give rise to his separate property interest therein.”
It’s interesting. While I know many will immediately take Dewan’s side – and I’m leaning that way as well – I imagine the argument is that Channing developed Magic Mike because that was his own story of being a stripper in Tampa, and yeah, he continued to develop projects out of that since their split. Jenna’s argument seems to be that since he created Magic Mike while they were married, she owns half of the entire property. I wonder what Channing offered her “in an attempt to settle this matter without litigation.” I wonder if Channing genuinely did collude to shelter this income.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- World Premiere of 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' at Odeon Leicester Square in London.,Image: 349860505, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Channing Tatum & Jenna Dewan, Credit line: – / Wenn / Avalon
-
- Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan attend the ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ world film premiere, London, UK,Image: 509588585, 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, Model Release: no, Credit line: James Shaw/Retna / Avalon
-
- WEST HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – MARCH 09: American actor Channing Tatum arrives at the Versace Fall/Winter 2023 Fashion Show held at the Pacific Design Center on March 9, 2023 in West Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 761787636, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Channing Tatum, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
-
- BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA – MARCH 12: Channing Tatum attends the 2023 Vanity Fair Oscar Party hosted by Radhika Jones at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 12, 2023 in Beverly Hills, California.,Image: 763126895, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Channing Tatum, Credit line: Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon
-
- BEVERLY HILLS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – APRIL 09: Jenna Dewan arrives at the Fashion Trust U.S. Awards 2024 held at a Private Residence on April 9, 2024 in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 863846899, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Jenna Dewan, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
-
- BEVERLY HILLS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – APRIL 09: Jenna Dewan arrives at the Fashion Trust U.S. Awards 2024 held at a Private Residence on April 9, 2024 in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 863847095, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Jenna Dewan, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
I’m sorry, hiding income is a form of financial abuse. I have lived through it.
I don’t think he’s trying to conceal income, he’s probably trying to protect himself and his assets if he gets sued and/or to reduce tax liability, and probably did so while they were married. Certainly that financial structure has changed by now and I think she should get what is owed to her but calling it abuse seems extreme.
100% @Huckle
Hiding income can be a form of financial abuse of course, but doesn’t seem like that’s what’s going on here. More like a legitimate disagreement about whose money is whose.
She should get a lump sum for anything related to the Magic Mike property that was already officially in development on the date of their split AND a percentage of residuals. Anything that was officially in development after that date should be his. And if she needs to sue to find out exactly which properties that entitles her to, fine.
There’s a relatively simple solution here. Jiminy.
It’s the hiding of finances that’s wrong and she should get what she deserves. I haven’t liked him for a minute now and his sexy single dad persona is shady too.
I give him a sliver of goodwill, just based on that movie projects and finance are always Byzantine and he probably has business people who set up the companies for him. I guess I’m leaning more towards, I don’t think these shell companies were set up to hide money from her, they were set up to hide money like every film is. It will be interesting to see what the court decides, as far as whether the properties derived from the IP he created while married are also something she has rights to.
I’m sure this will be unpopular here (as noted by the “While I know many will immediately take Dewan’s side”), but… OK, he developed it during their marriage so yes, CA law she gets her half. *But* – this was born of his personal experience, he continued it after they were done… Surely it’s possible that she’s the one being a little greedy? I think if the roles (genders) were reversed here, there would be no talk of “screwing” him out of her well-deserved earnings. Running to calling this “abuse” based on this one snippet of an article really does an injustice to people truly suffering abuse. Jenna does not strike me as a suffering victim…
I agree with you. Maybe there’s something we don’t know but from this article I would say he’s probably right.
I appreciate Molly’s take, because I have questions too. This article makes it sound like her stance is that, because he started developing one of the MM films while they were still married… she should continue to receive payouts for any/all MM films he developed later, after they divorced? Because she was his wife during the development period of one of them? If that’s the case I just can’t take that seriously, it’s certainly not “abuse” that he and his attorneys have a very different take on that question. And it’s certainly not “sheltering” assets to decided you want to have a judge make that final determination. I had the same thought too that if the roles were reversed and say, a woman’s former husband wanted a chunk of every successful sequel she ever made post-divorce, because she happens to be married to him during the initial film, I’d be rolling my eyes to the sky.
I read in an article that she invested money to produce the film initially, and if it’s true then she deserves income and royalties as well
I agree with you. Jenna has already moved on and has 2 kids with someone else. How long is she going to drag this out? Is she waiting to see how many more potentially related sequels he develops, so she can ask for a piece of those, too? Take your share of what was developed during the marriage and move on.
Agree with you Molly.
Hard disagree with you all, he has also moved on since a long time and if he was hiding assets she and their children are entitled to it. She is not being greedy, I’m sure financially she’s fine but if he was hiding assets during the divorce it’s absolutely her prerogative to reassert that
She should get some of income made up to the time they divorced.
That is for the attorneys and mediators or judges to work out, but if one party is hiding income and or assets it how can that be ok? It’s financial abuse through the legal system and it may not be devastating for this woman but for many others this behavior being allowed can destroy them.
In my opinion, you should get a part of the value at the time of separation, not in perpetuity. Not sure if what’s she’s asking is for the value at the time of the separation or now.
Personally I think she’s only entitled to what was earned while they were married. Not anything developed after.
And THIS is why I am a firm believer in pre-nups. Jenna has two kids with her new man, Channing is engaged to someone else…and they’re STILL fighting over money.
Most definitely. And not just for the rich or wealthy. Should really just be standard operating procedure for anyone getting married. You get your marriage license and a basic pre-nup contract and then get married. Sure would save a lot of money, litigation and angst for society in the long run.
I think, for me, if a woman developed a franchise based on her experiences as a stripper I’d be horrified if her spouse was trying to take more than what was developed during their marriage. It feels so intensely personal, and I realize that’s CA law at play. But it feels icky to me. Way more so than a random movie property that blew up.
IANAL so attorneys please chime in
I think that, in California, intellectual property is considered community property so with the division of the marital assets which include his IP (Magic Mike), that means she co-owns it with him and is legally entitled to proceeds from all development of that IP
Yeah, opinions about who deserves what from what point and who is being greedy or shady aside, this gets into intellectual property law, making it stickier than normal asset division in a divorce. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I’ve heard of the hiding of finances forever, and it’s not just celebrities who do it. I had a high school acquaintance whose husband, a doctor, hid money all throughout their marriage in cahoots with his parents. Yuck! She got custody of the kids and I don’t know how it worked out. I don’t think Tatum Channing is too “good” a man to think he didn’t do this. It’s his image that he’s a good guy. Doesn’t mean he can’t/hasn’t done shady/crappy stuff. And dang it, I just can’t see any chemistry between him and Zoey Kravitz. Is this a marriage of convenience for her? And why would she need/want that?
Not gonna lie-
If I was him I’d do it too.
Jenna has been engaged and having kids (plural) with some other dude for years…
She’s entitled to what was earned when they lived together as man and wife pre-separation.
Beyond that… I dunno.
But I do know that if I was him I’d do it too.
That’s all
It depends on the state. In Florida (where he was when he did the thing in fact in real life) If it was his intellectual property before he married her it is arguably non marital and she is only entitled to the share incurred during the marriage to the extent she either expended marital funds or efforts to develop or invest in the property
I’m going through a divorce as a normal, non celeb /millionaire human. And stories like this trigger me because divorcing is going to set me back financially in so many big ways. Losing my house because we will have to split the equity and I can’t afford to buy them out without selling, for example. It’s “fair”. It’s not like he doesn’t deserve his half. But I love this humble little house and because the market is so bonkers it is worth a lot more than we paid for it 10 years ago. That SHOULD be a good thing, but for me it means his half of the equity is higher than I can afford to pay him, so selling and splitting the profit is the only way. Unless I win the lottery.
200k, which is a LOT of money to so many, but a drop in the bucket to multi-millionaires would get him his half and allow me to put enough down to refinance it alone and be able to make the payments on a single salary. But 200k for me might as well be 20 million. Then I see people worth millions fighting over money and it just makes me feel bitter. (It is what it is, if he owes her money, he owes her money. I’m not saying anything against her for seeking what is legally owed her. It just makes me feel icky in a bunch of ways. jealous for one.)