• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

zeke said:
Has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

So the issue is that a 30 yr old human being with independent legal council provided to explain it wasn't capable of understanding:

"If you marry Kevin Costner and later divorce him, you get 1.5 million dollars and that's it"

I get where you're going with the power imbalance bit and all, and I'm sensitive to the argument usually but I don't see it here. If she didn't have independent council the pre nup would get tossed in a heartbeat and the terms seem to be pretty cut and dry (or, "understandable" in this context). It's just a meh deal for her given the length of the relationship. But I don't think the courts should be tossing out pre nups because the relationship turned out to be a mediocre return for her portfolio.
 
Prenups can be thrown out for being too lopsided, not having your own separate counsel at the time of signing, and/or being coerced into signing it….and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it tossed for one of those reasons.

$1m &

30k/m in child support after 18 years of marriage (plus $200k to find a new home, and property taxes for one year)…..when he was pulling in $1.3m per episode of Yellowstone, isn’t liable to fly with a judge.

Also, just by the wording of what we’ve heard it sounds like these details of the contract don’t include inflation at all?…..which makes me wonder what kind of legal representation she had of her own, at the time of signing. If that’s an accurate guess, it would also speak to her lack of fully comprehending what she was signing imo.

In the end I suspect they settle out of court, and he drops her $30-50m or so.



*was 30k judge upped it to $130k….
 
Last edited:
I don't think Costner is one of these guys who has Brad Pitt money of $500M or more.

Yellowstone was usually only like 10 episodes, and I think 5 seasons so far. Take out the commissions and other deductions, and tax, and it's not the crazy fortune that $1.3M sounds like. (Also, I'm sure he wasn't making $1.3M in the first season). But let's say he was and it's $65M less probably 25% in payments to reps, leaving $48M-ish, and then tax will take that down to like $24M, and he'll argue he spent a sizable chunk of that on the family over the last 7 years or whatever that it's been on.

The wild card is what his back end is worth though, as Yellowstone is a phenomenon (even though it has been shit since season 3), and he may even have a piece of derivative Taylor Sheridan projects since he was on the first/flagship show. But I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount is screwing him and reporting nothing special in the form of profits just yet. I actually did a deal for a client for a show within the Yellowstone universe, and they are incredibly stingy and barely move from round to round of negotiations, though I became pretty good friends with the lawyer on the other side during it (and have asked about Costner's deal in conversations, so know a bit in terms of magnitude, and not details, off the record).

Anyway, the point is, Costner isn't insanely wealthy like Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Bale, and others who had massive paydays during the heyday of the $20m plus per picture era, and was pretty dormant for much of his 18 year marriage until Yellowstone. I'm sure he's got investments and made a shit ton on stocks and real estate over the years if he had decent reps, but all of that stuff is separate property has nothing to do with the marital estate. So, I would guess there's zero chance of any $30M plus payday for her. I would guess she comes in more at $7M to $10M cash, plus the alimony until the kids become adults. Which is nothing to sneeze at when there's a perfectly valid pre-nup that the court will be happy to piss on.
 
They lived on a $185m compound…and he had another $100m+ in other real estate investments.

court documents (submitted by her, in fairness) has his net worth around $400m.

Also I think they may have 3 kids together, not just one. Which also changes things.
 
Montana said:
They lived on a $185m compound…and he had another $100m+ in other real estate investments.

court documents (submitted by her, in fairness) has his net worth around $400m.

Also I think they may have 3 kids together, not just one. Which also changes things.
Click to expand...
Ah, nice work. I guess the real estate really added up, and yeah, Jack, Dances With Wolves was a beast for him on the backend, so that's right. I clearly underestimated his pre-Yellowstone financial achievements. Good for him.

I want to say the wife should get what she "deserves" for 18 years of marriage, but analyzing this as "what is his net worth?" means that you're completely disregarding the existence of the pre-nup, because that's not a valid question to ask when it's in place and apparently enforceable. You just can't suddenly start making subjective valuations outside of that contract. Especially not when what she's getting is still a fortune that puts her in the upper echelon of the top 1%. I mean, $1.5M in child support every year? I don't know about you, but my budget as a child was nowhere near that amount. And let's not kid ourselves, she won't be spending that on the kids.

She signed it, it entitles her to rake in major dough now, and there's no basis for reviewing it (other than to establish its legal validity).
 
Montana said:
It’s one thing if they signed that prenup and divorced 2 years later…..but 18 years and three kids?

fuck nah.
Click to expand...
I know my prenup is already worthless. And that's fair. We got it for the initial years. Any decent lawyer would tell you it's unenforceable trash anyway, especially in Canada.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Ah, nice work. I guess the real estate really added up, and yeah, Jack, Dances With Wolves was a beast for him on the backend, so that's right. I clearly underestimated his pre-Yellowstone financial achievements. Good for him.

I want to say the wife should get what she "deserves" for 18 years of marriage, but analyzing this as "what is his net worth?" means that you're completely disregarding the existence of the pre-nup, because that's not a valid question to ask when it's in place and apparently enforceable.
Click to expand...

his total net worth is just to contrast with how little he’s trying to give her, and how massive a cunt he is.

LeafOfFaith said:
You just can't suddenly start making subjective valuations outside of that contract. Especially not when what she's getting is still a fortune that puts her in the upper echelon of the top 1%. I mean, $1.5M in child support every year? I don't know about you, but my budget as a child was nowhere near that amount. And let's not kid ourselves, she won't be spending that on the kids.
Click to expand...

Gonna go out on a limb, and suspect that Costner kids cost a lil more to raise than you did.
LeafOfFaith said:
She signed it, it entitles her to rake in major dough now, and there's no basis for reviewing it (other than to establish its legal validity).
Click to expand...

You’re the lawyer…..so it’ll be funny when my speculation ends up being way more accurate than yours.
 
Montana said:
his total net worth is just to contrast with how little he’s trying to give her, and how massive a cunt he is.



Gonna go out on a limb, and suspect that Costner kids cost a lil more to raise than you did.


You’re the lawyer…..so it’ll be funny when my speculation ends up being way more accurate than yours.
Click to expand...
I’m not a litigator or in family law. I know whatever I know from reading gossip junk just like you. The range I predicted was before I was aware of his apparent net worth. But nevertheless, the thing is, these situations often go hand in hand with the wife having all sorts of info about the public figure husband, and the threat of shit being disclosed is often what gets the settlement done. So whatever settlement they strike will probably turn on how much dirt she has on him. If nothing, then I’d stick with the $10m prediction. If substantially more, then it’s likely only because she knows about shit that’s worth more. If not for that, he can spend and drag her much farther than she has any appetite for.
 
So now you agree that she deserves more than the original prenup dictates?

Damn, I am a good lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Preston said:
I know my prenup is already worthless. And that's fair. We got it for the initial years. Any decent lawyer would tell you it's unenforceable trash anyway, especially in Canada.
Click to expand...

Please stay together for the children
 
Montana said:
So now you agree that she deserves more than the original prenup dictates?

Damn, I am a good lawyer.
Click to expand...
I haven’t ever made any comment on what she deserves. That was my prediction on what she’d ultimately settle for.

With respect to deserving, I don’t think it’s a valid subject in the face of an effective pre-nup. If there’s no pre-nup, I’m extremely pro-wife receiving half of the marital estate (but not any separate property that existed before the marriage).
 
LeafOfFaith said:
If not for that, he can spend and drag her much farther than she has any appetite for.
Click to expand...

Underrated point here. There's a non zero chance she loses if this goes the distance and he can sustain big lawyer fees that she simply can't in the event she does lose and the pre nup holds.

If she wins, she likely gets awarded legal fees paid for by Costner, but its' definitely a gamble when we're talking about the potential for 7 figures in legal fees in a drawn out fight.
 
If no contract is enforceable there will be lots of unintended consequences that go way beyond pre-nups. Personally I don't care if a pre-nup is "fair" or whether it becomes unfair over time. It's (supposedly) a legally binding contract that was (we assume) singed freely and with informed consent, not coerced in any way. If you signed it, you live up to it. Fairness doesn't enter into it. You signed a bad deal? Too fucking bad. You signed it. Live with it.
 
MindzEye said:
Underrated point here. There's a non zero chance she loses if this goes the distance and he can sustain big lawyer fees that she simply can't in the event she does lose and the pre nup holds.

If she wins, she likely gets awarded legal fees paid for by Costner, but its' definitely a gamble when we're talking about the potential for 7 figures in legal fees in a drawn out fight.
Click to expand...
In the US, the only way you recover your legal fees is if the statute you sue under grants it or, in private litigation like this, your contract provided for it. The “American Rule”. Unlike the English rule, which Canada follows.

I’m sure the pre-nup has such a clause, but it’s also been reported that it has a clause that says she forfeits everything if she challenges the pre-nup. And yet she’s doing it, and the court is allowing it. If she’s saying the whole pre-nup is junk and should be invalidated, those clauses would go with it. (Even though there may be a severability clause, but now we’re getting too in the weeds).

That’s why in the end, this all gets washed out in the settlement, which Costner will ultimately agree to, in order to just stop the bleeding of attorneys fees and bad press concerning his personal life. He’ll give her a lump sum and maybe a monthly till the kids turn 18, and pay for her legal fees. But the issue is, why should he be in this position if he has a valid and binding contract that says she should get zero if she tries to renege on it?
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
If no contract is enforceable there will be lots of unintended consequences that go way beyond pre-nups. Personally I don't care if a pre-nup is "fair" or whether it becomes unfair over time. It's (supposedly) a legally binding contract that was (we assume) singed freely and with informed consent, not coerced in any way. If you signed it, you live up to it. Fairness doesn't enter into it. You signed a bad deal? Too fucking bad. You signed it. Live with it.
Click to expand...
Contracts are enforceable so this isn't about that. Among other things, when you have a prenup and a marriage, sometimes the contracts can be contradictory. A general rule is, the simpler the prenup and the less demanding it is, the more likely it can be enforced.

If you wanna keep all your shit and draw up an aggressive prenup basically contradicting the marriage contract, the best way is to be 100% sure is to simply not get married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top