Generally, Hollywood divorces don’t offer much insight into life for the rest of us. And the point is probably underscored by wife Christine Baumgartner’s request for $248,000 in monthly support for three children. So, we aren’t going to dwell on that but rather the “complications” that a judge seems to have resolved last night.
Kevin Costner married Christine Baumgartner in 2004. The pleadings suggest they split in April of this year but there was a prenuptial agreement. A word of caution is in order. Almost all of this information comes via the Hollywood press and often the information we read comes highly tainted by friends, attorneys and flacks hired to feed the rest of us each side’s view of life.
But, the reports indicate that the prenuptial contains what lawyers term a “relocation package.” Ms. Baumgartner is a former model who has become a fashion entrepreneur and is reported to be a person of means in her own right. But they live in a $150 million dollar mansion and digs like that are hard to depart from. We are told the agreement tried to sweeten that challenge by proposing $1 million payable upon her departure from the marital home.
Ms. Baumgartner filed for divorce in May and suggested she and Mr. Costner has separated a few weeks before. The reports this writer has read indicated that Costner’s lawyers got the million dollar check ready but typically, they don’t tender it until the recipient says she will move by the date set forth in the agreement (typically 30-60 days from a filing for divorce) and that the agreement isn’t going to be contested based on fraud, unconscionability or any of a dozen other defenses that people like to assert to set aside their contracts.
This is where matters get sticky. In 2004, a million dollar resettlement package for a then childless 30 year old model sounds like a fairly reasonable sum. In 2023, $1 million dollars is pretty much a Southern California starter home. And, whatever the custody arrangement might be, it would seem fairly clear that Mr. Costner will be paying some child support. Unverified reports are that he offered $38,000 a month. Her demand is reported to be six times his proposal.
So, what happens is that while the couple may agree that it is “game over” the fight turns to on what terms departure will occur. Here, the scenario is not much different than that experienced by regular mortals when there is a prenuptial with a relocation package. The payor tenders but wants to know “when” the spouse and/or kiddies depart. The expectant payee responds, “I can’t live in Southern California with three affluent kids on $1,000,000 plus $1,050 a day. Heck two rooms at the Marriott are going to command $700 a night and that’s before videos and the minibar tab. If you want to play that way, I will have to ask the court to set aside the prenuptial agreement. If I succeed, that means the income from Hidden Figures, Molly’s World and McFarland USA could make the prenuptial obligations look cheap.
How easy is to set aside a prenup? Not very, but the laws often differ from state to state and then there are those contradictory facts the parties like to quibble over. Typically, this produces a motion to evict the spouse who is supposed to go and a counterclaim to set aside the prenuptial agreement. In Hollywood parlance this has a “stop action” quality because there is a lot at stake here. The numbers are much higher but if you and your spouse are done and you are supposed to fork over even $10,000 in relocation money you don’t want to pay unless you know relo is going to happen and you are not buying a contest over the prenuptial.
When I started writing this I didn’t think there would be a quick ruling since the case was just filed in May. But while I was typing so was the judge in Los Angeles. Judge Thomas Anderle is reported to have enforced the agreement as presumably valid and directed Ms. Baumgartner to leave Chez Costner by the end of the month (presumably with a check for $1,000,000). A fight over whether the agreement is invalid will be delayed until the Fall. The articles I read did not indicate if interim child support was established but one report stated the presumptive support based on Costner’s most recent income was at least $100,000 a month.
Again, the real problem is often that old agreements are based on old values both for assets and income. Some states will allow parties to argue that changes over time can make an agreement unconscionable and therefore modifiable or unenforceable. Most states eschew that doctrine.
Sometimes, agreements like these will have something called an in terrorem clause. That’s latin for “If you try to invalidate this agreement, you will get less and/or have to pay my lawyer’s fees to defend your frivolous claim.” Lawyers drafting prenuptial agreements will often suggest this clause as a means to prevent, or at least temper, threats to attack a prenuptial. The problem is that the parties negotiating these agreements back in 2004 or whenever, believed they were in love and that any divorce was simply out of the question. Try this on: “Darling Christine, I know we will be together for eternity but just in case, if you mess with this cold contract, I need to take away from what I promised, and you must pay my nasty lawyer.” Even if Crash Davis could utter these words, Annie Savoy would respond: “But Crash, you know that if it doesn’t work out, I would never put you through such a thing. We would just shake hands with your million transferring into mine and I would summon an Uber and head to the Marriott.”
It’s called Bull Durham although other terms are sometimes substituted for the Durham part.
[View source.]
