Costner v cosner divorce

Read the following and the attachments. Your assignment is to create a Discussion Board thread (and comment on your classmates posts) in relation to the Costner v. CostnerDivorce Case. Post your thread under the “CostnerDivorce Case” Forum.

Background:

A  prenuptial agreement (sometimes referred to as a “prenup”), is a written contract entered into by a couple before their marriage takes place.  Couples typically use these agreements to outline the terms and conditions for dividing up financial assets and responsibilities in the event of a divorce.  It is a contract.

Kevin Costneris a well known actor and star of many films, as well as the hit show, Yellowstone. Mr. Costner and his second wife, Christine Baumgartner, entered into a prenuptual agreement prior to their marriage in 2004. When Christine recently filed for divorce, the lawsuit centered on the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement between Kevin and Christine. At stake was Kevin Costner’s fortune, which is reported to total well in excess of $250 million.

Attached is a word documnent of “media reported” information regarding the Costner Divorce Action. This background was gleaned from a variety of online sources and should be used for purposes of responding to this assignment. Keep in mind that the attached information is not necessarily complete or accurrate — the agreement at issue is not a publically available document and the divorce was settled without many judicial findings.

In your Discussion Board post, you are to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case based on the reported information known. Your post(s) should include the following:

1.     Factual Background: Identify the key terms in the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution.

2.     Issue: Describe the legal arguments of each party, using the principles of contract law.

3.     Analysis: Explain who has the stronger case, in your opinion, and why. Include a discussion of any additional factors which could have impacted the analysis, had they been further explored or developed in discovery prior to the settlement.

4.     Conclusion: State how a judge should have ruled in this case (in your view) had the case not settled.

Your Discussion Board post will not be “publically” avilable to your classmates until after the “due date” for the assignment (I will be able to see them as they are posted). After the due date,  you will have one week to post comments on at least two other student’s Discussion Board posts regarding the Costner Case. Your comments on the other posts are part of your grade.

COSTNER v. COSTNER Assignment
General Legal Concepts Re: A Prenuptial or Pre-Marital Agreement (PMA)
It is a contract.
A divorce court may invalidate a PMA if it is fraudulent, unconscionable, or
was signed under duress.
A PMA could be declared unenforceable if it did not meet the locality’s legal
requirements.
Each party to a PMA must provide a “full and fair disclosure” of all of their
financial information. This typically includes a listing of each party’s assets,
debts, properties, business interests, and sources of income.
A PMA must be entered voluntarily, without threats or undue pressure.
The PMA should provide for a fair distribution of assets and must not be
“unconscionable.”
A PMA is not unconscionable simply because it provides for an unequal
distribution of assets or eliminates financial support of a spouse, so long as
the parties agreed upon that distribution.
For further information regarding prenuptial agreements, please consult
pages 940-943 of Business Law by Henry Cheeseman (11th Ed.).
(Media Reported) Factual Background Preceding Costner Divorce:
Kevin Costner was initially married to Cindy Silva, and had three children
with Ms. Silva (who are all now adults).
As the result of his first divorce, Kevin was ordered to pay Ms. Silva roughly
$80M. During the extended divorce proceedings, Kevin was apparently not
permitted to live in his own home.
Kevin had fourth child with a girlfriend to whom he was not married after his
first marriage ended.
Kevin and Christine Baumgartner later dated for six years before
marrying in 2004.
Kevin required a prenuptial agreement before his second marriage to
Christine.
Kevin and Christine were married for roughly 18 years and have three
children (two sons and a daughter). The Costner/Baumgartner children
were all teenagers at the time of the divorce filing, with ages ranging
from 13 to 17.
The Santa Barbara property which was Kevin and Christine’s marital home
was purchased by Kevin 1988 before the marriage.
The Santa Barbara property was estimated to be worth $149M at the time
of the divorce.
Christine was 49 years old at the time she filed for divorce.
Christine was a stay-at-home mother during the marriage, although she
was also a handbag designer and entrepreneur before and during the
marriage.
Christine’s handbag companies (including one called Coda Bands) were
reportedly funded by Kevin before and during marriage.
At the time the prenuptial agreement was signed in 2004, Kevin disclosed
various financial assets to Christine, which totaled roughly $102M at the
time. The financial disclosure to the PMA was roughly 15 pages long.
Kevin Costner’s total net worth today has been reported (in the media) to
be hundreds of millions of dollars (reports range from $250M to $400M).
His yearly income during the divorce proceedings was estimated to be
approximately $19-22 million per year.
Kevin solely supported the couple’s lavish lifestyle, including expenses of
roughly $6.6 million during the year prior to the divorce.
Christine’s handbag companies reportedly generated a monetary loss
during the marriage, and were funded by Kevin. They were no longer active
businesses at the time of the divorce.
Kevin was 68 years old at the time of the divorce.
The couple settled their divorce in February of 2024. The terms of the
settlement are not known.
(Media Reported) Terms in the Costner PMA:
The PMA was executed in 2004.
Kevin and Christine were both represented by counsel at the time.
Kevin was required to pay Christine $100,000 on their wedding day and
first anniversary, and an additional $1 million in the event of a divorce.
Kevin was required to pay $200,000 for the purchase of a new home and
one year of tax and insurance payments in the event of divorce.
The PMA dictates that, in the case of divorce, Christine must move out of
the Santa Barbara residence within 30 days of the divorce filing.
Under the PMA, Christine cannot live in any property owned by Kevin.
The PMA includes an “in terrorem” or “no contest” clause. In the event the
agreement is contested by either party, the benefits otherwise provided for
in the agreement are not enforceable.
The PMA also includes a statement in all caps that the parties entered
the agreement “voluntarily” and “free from duress, fraud or undue
influence.”
Part of the PMA outlined that if either party retained counsel to
“enforce or prevent a breach” of the agreement, “the prevailing party …
shall be entitled … to be reimbursed by the non-prevailing party for all
costs and expenses incurred thereby.”
It includes a waiver of spousal support.
It allows Christine to take one owned personal vehicle with her after the
divorce.
(Media Reported) Allegations/Circumstances During the Divorce
Proceedings:
Christine filed for divorce, and it was reportedly a “surprise” to Kevin.
Kevin previously complied with the payments required in the PMA during
the marriage.
The $200k payments Kevin made under the PMA during the marriage to
Christine were allegedly worth approximately $450K at the time of the
divorce filing.
Kevin agreed to pay roughly $1.5M to Christine under the terms of the PMA
following the divorce filing, but demanded she vacate the Santa Barbara
residence within 30 days.
Christine petitioned for a longer period of time to remain in the Santa
Barbara residence, arguing the difficult Santa Barbara housing market was
making it difficult to find a new place to live with the children.
Kevin reportedly offered to cover all relocation expenses to a new
residence.
Christine initially refused to move and made various demands for child
support.
Christine initially asked for $248,000 a month in child support, alleging the
figure was less than the amount actually needed to “maintain the children in
their accustomed lifestyle.”
Christine was eventually ordered to vacate the Santa Barbara premises
roughly two months after the divorce was filed.
Kevin reportedly offered to contribute $30,000 per month for a rental
property as part of his child support obligation and a $10,000 advance for
moving costs.
Kevin reportedly agreed to pay for all of the children’s expenses for school,
sports, extra-curricular, health care, etc.
Christine claimed she “felt pressured” to sign the PMA because of “the
circumstances surrounding its execution” and “didn’t fully understand it.”
Kevin asked Christine to pay his $99K in legal fees for litigating the
PMA.
Prior to the divorce filing, Christine allegedly took cash advances on credit
cards issued to staff members without Kevin’s knowledge or consent.
During the marriage, the couples allegedly leased all of their automobiles.
Prior to the divorce filing, Christine allegedly purchased a vehicle for her
personal use without Kevin’s knowledge.
Kevin alleged that under the terms of the PMA there is “no community
property” owned by both parties.
Kevin did not contest Christine’s right to remove her own personal clothing,
jewelry, toiletries and handbags from the marital home, but contested
removal of any other personal items from the house or Christine’s individual
storage unit.
Christine alleged that she had no income at the time of the divorce.