^^^
that kid has a gorgeous tan.
i was reading about their fights over money somewhere, in july the judge had ordered him to temporarily pay almost 130k a month, she was asking for 162k and he got it cut to 63k
my sense is she has a really bad prenup and is trying to make up for it with child support payments. but she's also paying 40k in rent so not sure how that will work for her prospects long term.
i think she's right to challenge the prenup because they've been married for almost 20 years during which she raised their kids and it's ridiculous that she only walk away with 1 million but it's hard to argue that you need 162k every month for your kids and have a judge take it seriously... he should at least give her a house to live in with the kids though.
If it was in Australian law.... *puts on professional hat and repeats the advice I put in a letter to a client today....*
a 20 year marriage means a starting assumption of 50/50ish. Even if one party made the bulk of the financial contributions, odds are that the non-wage earner party made a shit ton of non-financial contributions, especially contributions to the welfare of the family as homemaker and parent.
So then we look at earning capacity and future needs. If she has primary care of the children, and a much lower earning capacity, she could easily pitch for a property division 60% in her favour 40% in his favour. 20 years is a long relationship! Hell, 10 years is considered a long relationship in Australian family law. (Less than 10 years, not so much. Not really sure where the sweet spot is between "5 years or less is a short relationship" and "10 years is a long relationship" tbh. Case law varies).
In spousal maintenance (which is the same list of factors considered in future needs), one of the considerations is a reasonable standard of living
in comparison to the standard of living that the party was accustomed to in the relationship.
Mrs Costner, for whatever her failings are, is accustomed to a certain standard of living and fuck him. He can pay.
Here endeth the lawyer's rant.
just saw this post. and i totally agree (minus the possible 60-40 split in her favour if he's the major breadwinner, that's just wrong), i think after 10 years and kids prenups should be pretty much void and the split 50/50 but i guess american law disagrees.
speaking of, because technology spies on us, you know when you open google on your phone and there's a whole list of links you might be interested in and i guess i read GR on my phone a lot so it suggested this article about the judge's reasoning for cutting support, and he basically said that even though he found christine credible, anything more than what he awarded would be 'disguised spousal support' and the whole spousal support/prenup question is for a later court date i guess.
Judge Found Kevin Costner's Ex 'Credible' but Felt Larger Child Support Would Be 'Disguised Spousal Support'The judge said he didn't detect any "acting" during Kevin Costner's testimony and said he felt Christine's testimony was "credible"
By Benjamin VanHoose Updated on September 8, 2023 08:29AM EDT
The judge that sided with Kevin Costner in his child support case with estranged wife Christine is outlining how he reached his decision.
During a two-day hearing in Santa Barbara last week, both Kevin, 68, and Christine, 49, testified, getting emotional at times, as they spoke about raising their children and next steps as they go their separate ways.
On Friday, the ruling on child support was revealed: Kevin will pay $63,209 per month to Christine, not the $161,592 she was seeking. Kevin and Christine, who married in 2004, share three teenagers: Cayden, 16, Hayes, 14, and Grace, 13.
Judge Thomas P. Anderle, in a Tuesday court filing obtained by PEOPLE, recapped the proceedings and explained that he found Christine "credible" in her Thursday testimony, with "good courtroom demeanor."
However, while the judge "did not perceive there was any intention by [Christine] to mislead the Court," her testimony "was not much help on the issue before the bench today; will weigh her testimony with all the evidence in this case."
About Kevin, Anderle wrote that he "recognizes he is professional actor" and "weighed that in the decision-making process when judging his credibility."
The judge "did not find he embellished any of his testimony by relying on his profession; his testimony was straightforward; there was 'no acting'; found his testimony to be credible and consistent."
Anderle added that "both sides made strong closing arguments."
In regards to the ruling, Anderle said the "reasonable needs of the children are fully met by this child support order" and anything "greater than $63,209 per month" would be "disguised spousal support."
He added: "Christine will have her opportunity to convince the Court that she is entitled to spousal support. That is not the issue at hand for this hearing."
While Christine was on the stand Thursday prior to the ruling, she said a decrease in financial status would affect their kids. After moving out of their family home to comply with a court order, Christine said she is now in a $40,000-per-month rental since she’s “being conservative … because I have been very unsure what I will get and what the outcome of this case will be."
About the child support amount she was requesting, Christine said she wanted to provide a comparable lifestyle for the kids when they are with her. That cost "is our lifestyle, it’s how we lived," she said.
Christine added that she "will look into the steps I need to take and any schooling I need to do, and I will enter the workforce” in order to support herself, mentioning education as a potential career path of interest.
Meanwhile, Kevin said in his testimony Friday, "My biggest concern is that the court orders me to pay child support that is above the needs of my children and for the needs of Christine."
In a court filing last week just before the in-person court appearances, Kevin's lawyers said Christine "argues that Kevin 'steadfastly refuses' to pay child support sufficient to meet the children’s reasonable needs. That is demonstrably false and purposely inflammatory. The parties simply differ on what 'reasonable needs' means in the context of child support."
The exes will appear in court again later this fall to hash out the validity of their premarital agreement.
During a request for order hearing this week on Wednesday, Christine's attorney John Rydell said the outcome of that separate ruling could still go in a different direction that the child support decision.
"The other side seems to think that this case is over," said Rydell, adding to the judge, "I have 24 years of experience with you as a colleague. ... You never decide stuff without the evidence."
people.com/kevin-costner-judge-explains-child-support-decision-7966737
