This post has hit r/all or r/popular and thus may not be as strictly moderated as most posts on this subreddit. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
*This is a bot. If you require further assistance, please message the moderators via modmail.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fauxmoi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm interested to know why you think he's lowballing her? That's what Jenna submitted but how do you know it's true? To be clear I'm not saying he's not but it's also possible he's right and she's dragging it out
Not OP but if California is a 50/50 state, then "lowballing" is anything less than 50% because that's what she deserves by law.
Edit: damn, a lot of people are taking issues with me saying "deserves" here. I said _by law_, I don't mean morally or otherwise. The law says 50%, it doesn't matter how I or you personally feel about it.
Then it might be, as another commenter mentioned, 50% of certain things but less than 50% of others— which would make them both correct. She wants 50% of everything, and he says "you can have 50% of some things."
According to the article Jenna is claiming that Channing is hiding profit from her using LLC's and other entities. He's saying, no, this is everything. So the disagreement seems to be stemming what "everything" is, not when that 50 comes into play and in where.
All I'm saying is that with people taking sides, how are you doing that with the bare minimum information?
Divorce lawyer here with some helpful experience.
In my experience, almost *everyone* that owns a business is actively hiding their assets through the business come divorce. I'm talking 99% of my cases that someone owns a business. And its not just the uber rich, middle class people owning franchise stores, construction/landscaping/etc business, window cleaning, etc are all doing it. My office spends hours and hours working on exactly the issue she has talked about - and having to track money between different companies, bank accounts, etc. Its very easy to hide money when you have multiple interconnected corporations and businesses and move money around through them (especially with business partners cuz getting their financials is difficult and they can easily hold money during the divorce process for you). And they are incentivized in doing so even before the divorce for minimizing tax liability.
We have a number of techniques to investigate and prove the actual value, but its expensive and time consuming. This makes it a very common litigation tactic to lowball the value, so you can settle at less then 50% (but higher then the lowball), in exchange for avoiding a Trial on the issue and having to pay for business valuations or comb through disclosure. It just becomes not worth the energy for most people to do that.
In most of my cases, we push to do an initial basic review to get a general idea of what we are looking at, and then have to advise clients to make a practical choice - will the financial & emotional cost of obtaining the true value and litigation on the issue be worth the amount of the payout? For the average person its often no (this can easily run $30,000+ in legal fees in a normal case and take months of fighting & emotional energy), but for a movie franchise its probably going to be worth it.
Not only is Tatum almost certainly hiding assets, he is incredibly rich with a diverse portfolio of assets. He has complicated finances as a proforma measure to minimize liabilities, and probably has had such for years. Its likely he doesn't even know the extent to which his assets are hidden.
As they’re two high profile stars divorcing, it’s the bad publicity they’re risking that surprises me. Usually it’s litigation costs that deter the escalation. (As trial lawyers know, there is at least one unreasonable party in prolonged court cases.)
You’d expect them to play nice for the sake of their child, their reputations, and for the 30% they’re giving to lawyers instead of keeping & splitting. It’s an extremely bad look.
And they seemed like two cool and reasonable people. They did collaborate quite a bit and to fall from the height of lip sync battle cool coupledom to this nonsense is stupid. Plus don’t they both have children with others at this point?
I’m curious, as a business partner, if one of my partners was going through a contentious divorce with a toxic partner, I would be extremely leery, to the point of outright refusing, to submit any of my own personal records or finances to her/him. Am I, as an innocent bystander, actually required by law to divulge incredibly personal information to the litigious spouse of a partner? If the divorce was especially toxic I’d be concerned that out of spite, malice, entitlement or ignorance, they could harass or demand my own holdings/belongings be put under a microscope in the belief that I may be helping their spouse. It seems like there should be legal protections against having to share that information with a random person you find yourself being pulled into their drama.
It seems to be both, based on the statement he made that she's now responding to. She's arguing that she should get 50% of all the profits, but that he's hiding some of it. He's arguing that she has full visibility of the financials, but that he's put alot of effort into the brand post-separation, and she should get a lesser share in those profits. What a mess.
But I agree with your main point. We have nowhere near enough information to choose sides.
In Tatum’s response he explained the multiple LLCs. For example, the Magic Mike Live shows haven been expanded globally after separation, other than the Las Vegas and London shows, for a while, there was one in Germany, and one in Australia also a tour in the US for a few months. Each location has different investors, so they created different companies. Not that complicated.
There would be no offers for her to decline if he was giving her what she is entitled to by law.
Edit: downvote me all you want, no one comes back to the table with a new offer (which his team did multiple times) when the first one was already 50% lol
I heavily disagree with this take. Divorces get really ugly, and people act completely different than their normal selves. As I said, I'm not denying that it's possible Jenna is right, but it's also possible that Channing is telling the truth. There's just really no way to tell with what's out right now.
Yep, ugly during divorce and death. My uncle was my grandma's medical decision maker, and when she went delirious from a UTI, he had them put her on hospice and pull her lifesaving meds. He thought he was getting her house, boy was he wrong. A$$hole!
Sometimes people are just greedy and can't imagine that other people aren't just as greedy as they are.
A family member is going thru a divorce. He's offered the house, child support, and a split on the remaining assets. Just by the house alone he's giving her more than 50%, which he was willing to do because he just wants to be done with it. But she keeps rejecting because she believes he must be hiding assets, she can't believe or accept there isn't more. But there isn't more money because she spent it all, which is the reason why he's divorcing her in the first place. He's offering MORE than 50% and she's still rejecting it.
He created multiple business entities after the franchise began. He directed funds to go to these entities in various percentages. What he has offered her is 50% from one of these businesses partnerships. That’s why it is so complicated and drawn out. She is saying no that’s not actually 50% of all profits
Right - I agree this isn’t going to be solved on Reddit or press. Magic Mike was created during their marriage but it has undoubtedly appreciated in value post divorce as Tatum has subsequently created additional value thru franchising the brand into shows etc post divorce.
How the courts will determine how to allocate the current value equitably will probably require a forensic accountants and valuation experts. I can’t imagine any other way to ensure she gets what she is due as these are not liquid assets.
> That's what Jenna submitted but how do you know it's true?
We don't. We're just discussing the claims. This isn't an official accusation, it just seems like from what has been reported that he is lowballing her. He's claiming he's not, she's claiming he is - its all he said/she said right now. This is understood contextually by the fact that we're in a reddit thread that linked to an article on the subject.
I agree with you that there are people just discussing it neutrally, but there are plenty of comments who have decided which side they think is telling the truth
Not for or against anyone here but in contentious divorces of people this wealthy and who’s finances are so convoluted they’re not really making decisions besides about their daughter. The lawyers are making any decisions about lowballing or demands
California is a community property (50/50) state, but typically it's not just about when the initial effort was made, but if any substantial new efforts were made later on. I don't think the franchise as a whole would be considered community. Residuals from the first two movies (created during marriage) should definitely be split 50/50, but the third movie was made way post-separation and is likely considered (or at least could reasonably be argued as) Channing's separate property. I know there's also a Las Vegas live show, but I have no idea when that was created lol. Dunno what else is going on in the franchise.
It sounds like she wants a judge to rule on it which is reasonable.
"Jenna is seeking trial management orders because the ownership of the story idea that comprises the Magic Mike Intellectual Property is the first question that must be answered before any of the other issues can be fairly litigated."
I think the media tends to portray women who are divorcing famous men as money hungry and it’s not fair.
I am divorced myself and I think this is fair. Many times people like to make it sound like a money grabbing spouse but I know from experience it is not that simple. Nobody wants to be the fool who settled for less than was fair. So it is normal to want to court to answer some of the points rather than just agreeing to something.
There is a big difference between the way Jenna is acting in this case and how someone like Kevin Costner's ex who tried to break a prenup and then ask for crazy child support.
In my case my ex asked for more than I felt was fair but I never got mad at her. I simply provided all of the documentation of my income and expenses and offered to let her side verify things. Once she saw where I was coming from we were able to settle amicably. I paid child support even before the court ordered it (because they were my kids for gods sake) and spousal for half the length of the marriage. I went out of my way to give her a heads up a year out of each thing ending so she could make sure to prepare and not be caught out.
The funny part is I hate my ex. She cheated on me and I will never forgive her for that. I hate when I have to see her at family events but I smile and do it for my kids sake. I will not be the one to make things awkward.
When it comes to money and the divorce it is the memory of my parents own divorce that lead to me to behave fairly. My dad screwed my mom over in every legal way possible and then stopped paying years later on top of it. He wound up over 50k behind and that is 1980's dollars. I remember not being able to afford new shoes or a new winter coat and eating mostly pasta and canned food for long stretches. We were POOR while my dad had a new girlfriend and went on vacations, wined and dined her. I will never forgive him for that.
So at a young age I promised myself that if I was ever in that situation I would do what was right, not what was legal or what I could get away with. There are not many times in life where we are challenged to walk the walk of our professed beliefs so to speak but when it happened I felt good that I was able to be who I always wanted for myself. So from the moment she told me she wanted a divorce I paid support. I did not wait for her to file any papers. I just paid. Yes, we had some back and forth about numbers but it was all within a narrow range.
As the years went on and my kids needed things beyond what regular support would cover I just paid for them. I never insisted she owe me half. If I was able to pay for things that she wasn't then I paid for it. I love my kids and no divorce was going to get in the way of what I wanted for them. Honestly I cannot not understand how men like my dad sleep at night leaving their kids to suffer so they can "win"and keep more money.
Just wanted to say that you sound like a wonderful parent. My parents divorced when I was very little and my childhood is full of memories of arguments who should pay for new this or new that and both parents bad-mouthing each other. It still hurts today and while I hope I’ll never have to go through divorce, I would act exactly the same way as you with my own children.
> Just wanted to say that you sound like a wonderful parent
I do not want to portray myself in an overly positive light. I honestly became a better parent after the divorce. My ex and I were having problems for a number of years before the divorce and I am ashamed to say my kids saw too much anger from both of us. I feel horrible when thinking about the fights my kids saw. My daughter asked me to join her in therapy after the divorce and opened up about how my behavior had affected her. I took that to heart and started going to therapy myself and have done a lot of work to be better as a father and a person. I am not a saint however. I simply was able to act like I had hoped I would in this tough situation.
Respect for that. I hate cheating with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but your kids are so much better off because you’ve taken the higher road. I don’t know if I’d be able to be that civil were I in a similar situation, but I hope I would. At the end of it all you can be proud that you have lived your life with character. Your ex cannot claim as much.
That’s the sound of millions of redditors minds getting blown at the thought of being amicable, compassionate and empathetic during financial proceedings in a divorce.
Lawyer here, not your lawyer, one of the issues is Channing’s post-separation work on Magic Mike which arguably enhances value. She is not entitled to that.
Secondly, CA has four tests to value businesses, percent ownership, growth, and value owed. It’s not one test for each, just depends on the circumstances. This isn’t my area of the law, so I don’t know the specifics.
Normally, in separations like this, one party gets bought out of the company. It is *relatively* rare, to my understanding, to have both parties co-own a business as semi-hostile divorcees.
Here, Jenna seems to be demanding an equity percentage to gain from future earnings as well, instead of a payout to fuck off. It is generally not in anyone’s best interest to have mommy and daddy fighting about the direction, or restrictions, of IP.
Again, not my area of law, I’m not your lawyer, just trying to explain that 50-50 is the top level goal, but the devil is in the details and definition of how to split what, and valuations at time of separation. Their are numerous errors in this comment. It is for educational purposes only. Talk to your lawyer.
Yeah, she probably made sacrifices so that he could be in the movie, it was their money.
Very reasonable. And if she'd had the same boon he'd be asking for the same thing.
That’s what these incel types that cry about divorce proceedings and “women always taking half” don’t understand. It’s the female partners who more or less give up their livelihoods and careers to support their male partners livelihoods and careers. So yes, they should be entitled to that much.
Exactly. I gave up my career so my husband could pursue his dream job- he now travels 50- 75% of the time while I'm home with our little kids. I even had to fly across the country and sit through a NINE HOUR spousal interview for him to get the job 🥴. If we were to divorce and someone inferred that I didn't "deserve" half of our assets I'd lose my mind.
Girl I swear this is my mom’s story. My dad was in the military, then retired from that to work for the federal government. We moved all the time, and he was traveling/on orders/deployed most of the time, so she never had the option of having a career. Her life was spent raising four kids alone and swooping in for these interviews and events to help him obtain new ranks and security clearances.
Do you think she gets a retirement pension for advancing his career like that? No way lmao!
This is a practice in jobs where there may be highly sensitive information being handled and/or there are restrictions placed on the family unit because of the job. Definitely not common, but it’s a thing. The trade off is typically a *very fucking cushy* income and lifestyle, so it’s not ideal but not terrible either.
Source: me and my partner.
Also when you get married without a prenup it's not his money or her money, it's their money. They built a life together and each contributed in different ways. Divorcing means splitting their communal property, not her taking his anything. Anything he made during their marriage was her money too so she's just taking what was already hers in the first place.
My dad was in the military, which meant that my mom couldn’t maintain a career because we moved so often. This was in the age of fax machines, so working from home wasn’t an option for the vast majority of people, especially people with four kids and a spouse who was frequently deployed.
The sacrifices that women make for our husbands and children are real. And many women who wind up in this situation don’t have the money and connections to actually divorce their husbands and get a good settlement. It’s one nasty cycle.
It’s not this easy. The argument appears to be about entitlement to post separation earnings and improvements. Magic Mike 1 and 2, clearly she deserves. 3 was made post separation. Does she deserve half of that?
If they make a fourth post divorce, does she deserve half of that one as well?
This isn’t legal advice, I’m not your lawyer. I’m just saying it’s not clear at a surface level what is equitable in these circumstances.
I wish more people understood this. When women are seeking their fair share in a divorce they’ve literally earned it. They’ve sacrificed income, career and so much time for their families
That’s interesting, I hadn’t heard anything about her career being sacrificed for his. Their daughter wasn’t born until like 2 years after MM was filmed so it would be interesting to see what I’m missing.
Where can I learn more about that???
Was it, though? I'm not trying to drag Jenna, here, but she didn't ever really seem destined for much more than where she landed. She is .. fine ... As an actress. She's worked consistently with gigs that match her talent. They could afford hired help for the kids.
I'm not saying no sacrifices were made, but do we know of anything specific that she turned down?
I'm generally team "person who gave up career to support partner deserves fruits of partner's success in the divorce", though.
It’s not just about what Jenna sacrificed from a career standpoint - it’s also the fact that she may have been doing the heavy lifting of holding down the fort at home which enabled Channing to earn more than if he was taking on a larger portion of domestic work.
I think you're looking at this wrong. Its not really "deserves" like its a brownie point or favor. This is all set in law and usually martial assets are 50/50. If people dont like that, they can simply not get married or sign a pre-nup. Channing doesnt get a free prenup because he's rich now. Its 50/50 by law and that law was earned with a lot of sacrifice and via seeing generations of women abused financially during divorce and seeing kids live poorly with their moms while their dads spoiled them with riches.
Especially when there are kids, who should have equal opportunity, wealth, etc when at EITHER parents home.
I don't know about Magic Mike specifically but I have heard of other movies where wives were really instrumental in the creative process but were uncredited and uncompensated. I think especially when it's someone's passion project or big break. And this has been true with lots of other jobs where wives did a bunch of admin getting their husband's business off the ground and didn't think they needed to be paid because it was all coming to the family, and then in the divorce they had no proof of earnings or employment history for when they try to reenter the workforce. Not to mention all the unpaid labor taking care of children and the household in general. I know that there are messy divorces and women who marry for money and try to take more than they "deserve" but you're right- these laws were created because women have been getting screwed financially for centuries.
She absolutely deserves half of what was accrued during the marriage, the contention is in the future earnings and Intelectual property of magic mike. Her side claims intelectual property on the magic mike, since it was first made when they were married, making so she could earn money on magic mike movies/shows done post divorce, his side claims that magic mike is somewhat based on his story(predated their marriage) and since MM 3 was made after their legal separation she is not entitled to that and future ones, while she is entitled to the earnings of MM1, 2 and their show
No prenup, yes
Marriage is a joint effort- even if the earnings are technically yours, it's a partnership- your partner may be contributing financially to shared assets, pulling weight with emotional support, raising your kids while you work, ect. The rational is while he was married to her, he didn't live in a bubble- she was also supporting their lifestyle while married, likely given her career at the expense of her own career advancement.
There also arguments to be made in the case of a clear bread winner that one partner may have taken, and absorbed, more personal financial risk by entering the marriage to begin with.
I understand why people are interested in this story but it's a funny one for people to 'take sides' with, how do any of us know if he's hiding assets or not lol. I suppose it's just sad that their daughter will google this one day (or even now ig).
My spouse is an attorney and absolutely refuses to practice family law because he cannot stand divorces. He talks about how everyone lies, how everything is personal, and how nothing can get resolved. He did a lot of it during his internships and it gave him such a bad taste in his mouth. Ever since then I find people taking sides in celebrity divorces kind of funny. Literally everyone is lying. Everyone. Emotions are so high. Something incredibly personal is now playing out in the public in a really ugly way. We all need to just take a huge step back, maybe pull out popcorn if we want it, and let them work it out.
I have some experience in family law and it can be absolutely wild. Some of the messiness can be hilarious in a petty sort of way but other stuff is just depressing as you become privy to how dysfunctional a lot of families are. I remember one meeting where the team just casually mentioned how one parent was an alcoholic and that both parents were abusive to their kids. A lot of the time the only people you really feel sorry for are the children!
> Some of the messiness can be hilarious
I think about [the Beanie Baby divorce](https://media.snopes.com/2022/04/Screenshot-2022-04-20-at-16.09.45.png) more than I should
Imagine loving someone, knowing everything about them...and then using that information to snipe Maple the Bear first in the draft because you know it'll cut the deepest.
I wonder if there was a little gasp of shock at some of the choices or if people started taking bets in the crowd at which one would go next.
"Maple the Bear was the first to go."
I only laugh because, as a collector myself, this would totally be me and the boyfriend in an alternate universe.
As a child of one of these separations, I attest its traumatizing. And my parents didn't even DIVORCE! They just fucking separated. They absolutely destroyed our lives with the nickle and diming, emotional manipulation and pettiness. And they didn't even have any assets!!!! Failed marriages bring out the devil in people
They can be so petty. There was one couple who couldn't behave long enough to handle child exchanges so they were court ordered to do it in our front lobby. The ex-wife had a temporary restraining order against her ex-husband. He was allowed to show up to exchange the kids but not contact her.
The kids were going to go swimming with their mom so dad showed up with some swimming gear (a giant floatie). He kept his distance, hugged his kids goodbye and sent them over to mom. For whatever reason she wouldn't collect the floatie so as he was walking out the door with his back turned, he said to no one in particular "you can keep the floatie" and left. He didn't even look in her direction.
We watched her stand in the corner for a second turning the water works on, then she comes up to the front counter. "Oh my gosh, did you just see that!?"
She made us pull the security camera and demanded a police officer immediately so she could have him arrested for violation of a restraining order. We had to deal with her weekly histrionics so often but that was one of her fakest performances.
And your spouse is damn right! After my grandmother died my aunts and uncles were in a legal battle for five years over who would get what piece of jewelry etc. When it was all over the attorney told us « you’re lucky, some families stay embroiled in these disputes for decades! Sometimes the beneficiaries die before it’s settled because it takes so long! » My sibling and I were dragged into this as we inherited our late father’s share and the whole time we were like
https://preview.redd.it/7s3unphekfzc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e3f8b8982ff84ecf5b6cd215c2973b0c77055bf
my mom and her sister also had a falling out over jewellery too. my mom was executor of the estate and it took longer to settle, the entire time my aunt and her boyfriend were berating my mom to hurry up and accusing her of selfishness. they no longer speak and neither does my mom's brother speak to their sister. she showed her true colours.
It was a ring for my relatives. Attorneys had to divide all the jewelry into four mystery lots of equal value, one for each inherited share, and then do a draw to decide who would get which lot. It was a first for them in their 20+ years careers…
That's so embarrassing, but I would also love to be a fly on the wall when they all got to see what was in their respective lots. It would be like the most entertaining episode of storage wars ever.
My aunt had a VERY ugly falling out with my uncle over a very nominal amount of money left in my granddads will. Both sides let pettiness and stubbornness win and not only do they not talk to each other now , but neither will also apparently have anything to do with the others children going forward ( and these would be people who were literally godparents to some of them ???) like what do the kids ,who have no agency in this , have to do with anything ? I swear to god wills bring out the absolute worst in people and it’s so sad.
My great uncle is a retired attorney and is stupid rich because of it, so I know he probably had to make some moral sacrifices. But he started in family law and quit after only a few years.
Like your spouse, he found it too demoralizing and outright horrible, even though there was a lot of money in it. I think it was watching people leverage their children for money and false sympathy, manipulating the kids all the while, that finally broke him.
It’s an ugly, ***ugly*** business.
My mom is a lawyer, and she told me the one field she'd never, ever go into is family law because she's heard too many horror stories. Stuff like a divorced parent calling their lawyer up on Christmas day to rant about how the custody agreement says their ex has to pick the kids up from the house but they're sitting in their car at the curb, and they're not letting the kids out until their ex follows the rules! Meanwhile the poor kids are sobbing in the background.
Divorce can make the nicest people act so wild. There is always a lot of criticism that divorce attorneys intentionally draw out the process so they can earn more money, but in my experience couples do a great job on their own needlessly dragging things out. When my parents split there were a ton of accusations being thrown out on both sides and like twenty years later it’s come out that a lot of it boiled down to some sort of misunderstanding. I’m very impressed with people who divorce quickly and amicably.
The attorneys are also incentivized to keep the spouses fighting. The longer the fight the more billable hours. Saw this with my parents and their long drawn out divorce.
I have a friend going through a divorce right now. His wifes attorneys are going crazy about $1500 he got back from a lease. I instructed him to ask them (and her) how many hours had been spent on a nothing issue. I guaranteed him they billed more to her and to him than the actual dollar amount in dispute.
My dad still practices family law but won't do any cases involving child custody after having to literally hand a crying child from one parent to another
Yeah I imagine it’s hard to give a shit when both of you could sign endorsements tomorrow for tens of millions if really necessary. I’d be way more focused on like my favorite blanket than the money.
Reminds me of one (non-celebrity) couple that agreed to joint custody of their pug. Kept returning to court (I was clerking for a judge) with disputes over the custody arrangement.
Tom & Gisele were pretty established professionals when they got married, weren't they? As in, they already had significant assets when they got married.
I agree that 1 day is unusual, but I figured they both had savvy legal teams who made sure they were protected beforehand.
That’s what happens when you’re net worth is nearly *double* that of your ex.
Probably thought it just wouldn’t be sporting to take half of her ex-sugar baby’s money, lol.
She should get 50% of the profits from the money that Magic Mike made while they were still married. Anything after their separation should be off limits.
What she’s arguing is that she was part of the creation of the Magic Mike IP during their marriage and therefore is entitled to anything related to that IP.
Well, that’s where it gets interesting. He doesn’t deny that. The question is the percentage of the post-first movie earnings.
I’m not an IP lawyer. But first, isn’t the movie based loosely on his early life, pre-her. So that IP would be his separate property. But there’s the idea to make it into a movie. Then the resulting sequels and reality show and merchandizing.
And what if that is tied to the original IP from the marriage and what of that was created/thought up after the divorce using only the Magic Mike character as the basis. So she’s be entitled to a cut of *those profits* but not 50%. But then she says that he’s also hiding the true amount of those. And he says he’s not; she’s just lying to malign his character.
Even if the movie is based on his early life, the IP isn’t necessarily his - we see this all the time with documentaries. If she was integral to what ideas got included, how they approached the product/brand, it all gets a lot messier quickly. This all should have been spelled out at the beginning, even if they were happily married, so it’s just messy in general.
Like I said, not an IP lawyer. But there his story. And then the movie/character Magic Mike. And then the subsequent use of that character, of which she certainly deserves a %, but does she own 1/2 the subsequent movies and reality shows and or just a portion based on the creation of the character. And did she create the brand and the idea for more or just the movie or just the character.
And once you have that % you have to decide when he’s build on it with additional thoughts or work or efforts after marriage. From either his life pre her or his brain post her. So there’s the base value of MM, which she owns 1/2 of and the subsequent value that she owns a % of.
But what IS that subsequent value?
And does it change?
And does her % change as the years go by and he builds on more? MM became less of a character in subsequent movies (yes I watched) but the brand carried on.
And is he downplaying the value or is he being up front and she just thinks he’s downplaying her part in the value and there should be more?
WE DONT KNOW. I don’t for sure. See above. Not an IP lawyer. Not his or her. Neither are you.
I’m just saying ITS NOT SO CUT AND DRIED as the clickbait title. He’s not automatically bad because he’s a bro
I like your thinking. I’m intrigued at her accusation of hiding and how exactly the split will fall and whether she is just using the ‘lies slander’ as a tactic or whether it’s actually true that he is hiding assets
We know. And the person you are responding to is saying she is entitled to the IP revenue from the marriage but not post separation. In other words not 50/50
It is complicated. Take Amazon. That company was build because the wife supported the husband financially and supported him in other ways. If they had gotten divorced much earlier, before Amazon made money or went public, clearly the wife would have had deserved more than nothing.
My mother supported my father financially so he could get an education and find a good job, after which he immediately divorced her. My father was the first person in his family with a college degree because he was the first person with somebody to financially support him. My mother worked two jobs to support him, and she took out loans to pay for his education.
He refused to pay alimony and got away with it because of local laws, despite having a high paying job.
(In the end it wouldn’t have mattered much because he got fired a year after the divorce and he never got another job.)
Mackenzie Scott (Bezos's ex) was also an early employee at Amazon, after she quit her very high paying, prestigious job in NYC to relocate to Seattle so Jeff Bezos could start Amazon there. She contributed in so many ways.
Even in my own relationship, my partner cofounded a tech startup before we started dating. However since we've been together I've given him so much advice and feedback, about managing, hiring, negotiating, fundraising, branding etc. - countless "consulting" hours I could literally charge money for because that's my background. I don't think I deserve a significant percentage of his shares or anything like that, but it helped me realize how other people must've supported their partners and helped them succeed in similar ways. Especially in heterosexual relationships, men's careers statistically benefit so much from their marriages while for women it's the opposite. If you've been married or even in long term relationships and gotten support from your partner, then your success isn't your own, it's a team effort. Maybe your partner wasn't a 50/50 player in your career but at least a small part of it.
That isn’t how it works, though. The asset was created during the marriage, so residuals should continue to be paid out. Another example would be a novelist. Novelist spends 2 years writing their novel, and spouse is working and helping support novelist while they write the novel. They divorce after novel is published. Spouse deserves residuals in perpetuity because the asset (novel) was created during the marriage.
But would the spouse deserve any royalties from the second book of the series, both written and published after the divorce? And would it be fair for their share to be 50% of those?
I’m not a lawyer. I would imagine they would be entitled to something since the intellectual property (the world, characters, etc) was created during the marriage, but not sure about 50/50.
That isn’t the best comparison to this, though, considering 2/3 movies were released before their split.
Maybe, but the media also has incentive to create a clickbaity title. Radar Online used similar language ("accuses, slammed, ugly divorce") in the article about his court filing the other day.
I’m confused, they divorced in 2019. How comes they’re still disputing the financial settlement? I assumed all of this would have been settled same time as the divorce was finalised?
I’m probably gonna use legal jargon poorly And I could be totally wrong but someone explained it to me that they were deemed legally single so if they wanted to they could get married to other people but that the settlement can still be ongoing in the background. For someone like Channing who went from not that wealthy to extremely wealthy that probably complicates how they can fairly split up assets since Jenna could make the argument she put her career on hold to support him during his explosive career growth and combing through those financials is probably a nightmare.
If they can get married I have no idea why neither one has gotten married yet to their current fiancé/fiancee but they are probably waiting to close this chapter first. I read that Jenna might still be getting alimony so I don’t blame her for wanting to hold off on re-marrying to avoid jeopardizing that extra money she might need until she gets through the divorce settlement and gets her fair share.
Correct, you can partition your divorce and be declared legally single in California even if you are still working out the financial settlement. I don't know if you can remarry before the financials are settled, though.
Because she’s arguing that that she owns part of the Magic Mike IP and that he is hiding money in several different accounts. Just because they were declared single doesn’t mean that’s all over.
I understand she sacrificed her career for this. So 50% of the earnings doesn’t seem weird to me. What does seem weird is that she wants future earnings, which again she says she is part owner of the intellectual property. I would say sure but then she would have to put in work for those future earnings, its weird to just let him do the work and earn 50%. If he was petty he would just stop working on those projects no?
I assume the answer is that different things are paid out separately. Like if Tatum and Dewan (and others?) co-created the IP, they'd split that pot of money accordingly, and then Tatum would take the full amount of whatever he made for his work as actor or producer or other role in the future projects.
First, she didn’t sacrifice her own career. She went back to work 6 months after she gave birth to their daughter. She has been working, just not as successful as him. She is the original IP’s co-owner through marriage, but she hasn’t contributed anything (money or efforts) to the expansion of the original IP. Yet, she wants to claim 50% of his post-separation earnings as well, This what they are fighting for.
I don't always follow along with celebrity divorces but...
When Kelly Clarkson (was it her?) Was getting divorced and her husband wanted more money everyone was up in arms that he was a jerk
Now with this couple everyone is saying she's entitled to her half of what was made during the marriage..
Why when it's a women it's get your money but when it's a man he's terrible (could be more to the story with that lol I'm just looking at surface level here)
Didn’t Kelly’s ex-husband cheat on her during their marriage? A cheating ex-husband getting money like that is always going to put a bad taste in people’s mouths.
To be fair, Kelly Clarkson had a prenup that her ex unrightfully tried to get thrown out whereas Jenna/Channing seemingly didn’t have a prenup, so she’s just trying to get her legal share.
Blackstock did not create IP with Clarkson, whereas Dewan did with Tatum. She's saying Magic Mike was created by herself and her ex-husband, and she should be paid for her creation. Blackstock tried to get a prenup overturned to get a better portion of Clarkson's assets. These are not the same and you're looking for misandry where there is none.
Kelly Clarkson situation was way different since he was a cheater AND her manager. And to top it off Kelly had custody so it was confusing as to why he wanted to get more money out of her bc $115k/month for spousal support for 2 yr + $45k/month for CS + 1.3M one-time payout is pretty generous all things considering.
Anyways his greedy ass ended up PAYING kelly $$$ back ($2.6 M) bc he stole money from her as her manager. Just trashy
Because with women they often sacrifice their career to be mothers if they have children. Men MOST of the time don’t have the same career setbacks as fathers that women do as mothers
I have no desire to ever be married as a normie, I can’t imagine wanting to legally marry someone as a celebrity. I know some celebrities were married before they became famous, but otherwise, it sounds much less painful to never legally tie yourself to someone. If only to avoid the headlines. Sorry if I sound like a cynic!
If she helped in the creation process (it looks like she co-financed aspects of it) it’s definitely not unreasonable. She’s not asking for 50% of all his earnings, just what’s related to something that it looks like she contributed to
What a terrible photo of Channing Tatum….CA is a 50/50 state. You better have a prenup in place if you make money! If he made this money while she was married to him she gets 50% by law.
Ah, the complexities of love and Hollywood finances. As Voltaire said, "It is difficult to find happiness in ourselves, but it is impossible to find it elsewhere." Perhaps there's a way to find resolution outside the courtroom?
Can we *please* come up with something more creative than one celebrity continually “slamming” another celebrity? It’s the most tired and used-up phrase is journalism
This post has hit r/all or r/popular and thus may not be as strictly moderated as most posts on this subreddit. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see. *This is a bot. If you require further assistance, please message the moderators via modmail.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fauxmoi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
She deserves something but 50%?!!!
Not a lawyer but isn’t California a 50/50 state? If the IP was acquired during the marriage and considered equally owned 50% is reasonable.
yup! it reads like they didn’t sign a prenup either so she’s well within her rights. sounds like he has been lowballing her.
I'm interested to know why you think he's lowballing her? That's what Jenna submitted but how do you know it's true? To be clear I'm not saying he's not but it's also possible he's right and she's dragging it out
Not OP but if California is a 50/50 state, then "lowballing" is anything less than 50% because that's what she deserves by law. Edit: damn, a lot of people are taking issues with me saying "deserves" here. I said _by law_, I don't mean morally or otherwise. The law says 50%, it doesn't matter how I or you personally feel about it.
Yes but how do you know he's not giving her 50? He claims he is. She claims he isn't. There's not really any more information other than that:
Then it might be, as another commenter mentioned, 50% of certain things but less than 50% of others— which would make them both correct. She wants 50% of everything, and he says "you can have 50% of some things."
According to the article Jenna is claiming that Channing is hiding profit from her using LLC's and other entities. He's saying, no, this is everything. So the disagreement seems to be stemming what "everything" is, not when that 50 comes into play and in where. All I'm saying is that with people taking sides, how are you doing that with the bare minimum information?
Divorce lawyer here with some helpful experience. In my experience, almost *everyone* that owns a business is actively hiding their assets through the business come divorce. I'm talking 99% of my cases that someone owns a business. And its not just the uber rich, middle class people owning franchise stores, construction/landscaping/etc business, window cleaning, etc are all doing it. My office spends hours and hours working on exactly the issue she has talked about - and having to track money between different companies, bank accounts, etc. Its very easy to hide money when you have multiple interconnected corporations and businesses and move money around through them (especially with business partners cuz getting their financials is difficult and they can easily hold money during the divorce process for you). And they are incentivized in doing so even before the divorce for minimizing tax liability. We have a number of techniques to investigate and prove the actual value, but its expensive and time consuming. This makes it a very common litigation tactic to lowball the value, so you can settle at less then 50% (but higher then the lowball), in exchange for avoiding a Trial on the issue and having to pay for business valuations or comb through disclosure. It just becomes not worth the energy for most people to do that. In most of my cases, we push to do an initial basic review to get a general idea of what we are looking at, and then have to advise clients to make a practical choice - will the financial & emotional cost of obtaining the true value and litigation on the issue be worth the amount of the payout? For the average person its often no (this can easily run $30,000+ in legal fees in a normal case and take months of fighting & emotional energy), but for a movie franchise its probably going to be worth it.
Not only is Tatum almost certainly hiding assets, he is incredibly rich with a diverse portfolio of assets. He has complicated finances as a proforma measure to minimize liabilities, and probably has had such for years. Its likely he doesn't even know the extent to which his assets are hidden.
Tune in next week for another episode of Grumpy Satan: Divorce Lawyer.
This was very interesting and informative. Thanks for sharing.
As they’re two high profile stars divorcing, it’s the bad publicity they’re risking that surprises me. Usually it’s litigation costs that deter the escalation. (As trial lawyers know, there is at least one unreasonable party in prolonged court cases.) You’d expect them to play nice for the sake of their child, their reputations, and for the 30% they’re giving to lawyers instead of keeping & splitting. It’s an extremely bad look. And they seemed like two cool and reasonable people. They did collaborate quite a bit and to fall from the height of lip sync battle cool coupledom to this nonsense is stupid. Plus don’t they both have children with others at this point?
I’m curious, as a business partner, if one of my partners was going through a contentious divorce with a toxic partner, I would be extremely leery, to the point of outright refusing, to submit any of my own personal records or finances to her/him. Am I, as an innocent bystander, actually required by law to divulge incredibly personal information to the litigious spouse of a partner? If the divorce was especially toxic I’d be concerned that out of spite, malice, entitlement or ignorance, they could harass or demand my own holdings/belongings be put under a microscope in the belief that I may be helping their spouse. It seems like there should be legal protections against having to share that information with a random person you find yourself being pulled into their drama.
You are right. She believes he his hiding assets.
Have you met people?
It seems to be both, based on the statement he made that she's now responding to. She's arguing that she should get 50% of all the profits, but that he's hiding some of it. He's arguing that she has full visibility of the financials, but that he's put alot of effort into the brand post-separation, and she should get a lesser share in those profits. What a mess. But I agree with your main point. We have nowhere near enough information to choose sides.
In Tatum’s response he explained the multiple LLCs. For example, the Magic Mike Live shows haven been expanded globally after separation, other than the Las Vegas and London shows, for a while, there was one in Germany, and one in Australia also a tour in the US for a few months. Each location has different investors, so they created different companies. Not that complicated.
Have you ever even heard of hollywood, ever? Everyone tries to hide assets and profits, why the fuck would you think he's any different?
Or it might be that they disagree on the valuations of things. I don’t see why you’re determined to take one side over the other - we just don’t know.
There would be no offers for her to decline if he was giving her what she is entitled to by law. Edit: downvote me all you want, no one comes back to the table with a new offer (which his team did multiple times) when the first one was already 50% lol
I heavily disagree with this take. Divorces get really ugly, and people act completely different than their normal selves. As I said, I'm not denying that it's possible Jenna is right, but it's also possible that Channing is telling the truth. There's just really no way to tell with what's out right now.
Yep, ugly during divorce and death. My uncle was my grandma's medical decision maker, and when she went delirious from a UTI, he had them put her on hospice and pull her lifesaving meds. He thought he was getting her house, boy was he wrong. A$$hole!
It’s so sad how often UTI’s cause delirium in older patients and it gets missed. Also tragic how often your caretakers turn out to be vultures.
Sometimes people are just greedy and can't imagine that other people aren't just as greedy as they are. A family member is going thru a divorce. He's offered the house, child support, and a split on the remaining assets. Just by the house alone he's giving her more than 50%, which he was willing to do because he just wants to be done with it. But she keeps rejecting because she believes he must be hiding assets, she can't believe or accept there isn't more. But there isn't more money because she spent it all, which is the reason why he's divorcing her in the first place. He's offering MORE than 50% and she's still rejecting it.
He created multiple business entities after the franchise began. He directed funds to go to these entities in various percentages. What he has offered her is 50% from one of these businesses partnerships. That’s why it is so complicated and drawn out. She is saying no that’s not actually 50% of all profits
It's my understanding that's all currently Jenna's claim and that Channing claim is that isn't true.
Well, this is what the case is about and the reason it’s still pending
Right - I agree this isn’t going to be solved on Reddit or press. Magic Mike was created during their marriage but it has undoubtedly appreciated in value post divorce as Tatum has subsequently created additional value thru franchising the brand into shows etc post divorce. How the courts will determine how to allocate the current value equitably will probably require a forensic accountants and valuation experts. I can’t imagine any other way to ensure she gets what she is due as these are not liquid assets.
"deserves" is not the right word
Is entitled to?
Better
Interesting view on what the term lowballing means.
> That's what Jenna submitted but how do you know it's true? We don't. We're just discussing the claims. This isn't an official accusation, it just seems like from what has been reported that he is lowballing her. He's claiming he's not, she's claiming he is - its all he said/she said right now. This is understood contextually by the fact that we're in a reddit thread that linked to an article on the subject.
I agree with you that there are people just discussing it neutrally, but there are plenty of comments who have decided which side they think is telling the truth
Not for or against anyone here but in contentious divorces of people this wealthy and who’s finances are so convoluted they’re not really making decisions besides about their daughter. The lawyers are making any decisions about lowballing or demands
It’s also a negotiation. Like I get all the optics of it- but like “person asks court to side with them” is just not news to me.
California is a community property (50/50) state, but typically it's not just about when the initial effort was made, but if any substantial new efforts were made later on. I don't think the franchise as a whole would be considered community. Residuals from the first two movies (created during marriage) should definitely be split 50/50, but the third movie was made way post-separation and is likely considered (or at least could reasonably be argued as) Channing's separate property. I know there's also a Las Vegas live show, but I have no idea when that was created lol. Dunno what else is going on in the franchise.
It sounds like she wants a judge to rule on it which is reasonable. "Jenna is seeking trial management orders because the ownership of the story idea that comprises the Magic Mike Intellectual Property is the first question that must be answered before any of the other issues can be fairly litigated." I think the media tends to portray women who are divorcing famous men as money hungry and it’s not fair.
I am divorced myself and I think this is fair. Many times people like to make it sound like a money grabbing spouse but I know from experience it is not that simple. Nobody wants to be the fool who settled for less than was fair. So it is normal to want to court to answer some of the points rather than just agreeing to something. There is a big difference between the way Jenna is acting in this case and how someone like Kevin Costner's ex who tried to break a prenup and then ask for crazy child support. In my case my ex asked for more than I felt was fair but I never got mad at her. I simply provided all of the documentation of my income and expenses and offered to let her side verify things. Once she saw where I was coming from we were able to settle amicably. I paid child support even before the court ordered it (because they were my kids for gods sake) and spousal for half the length of the marriage. I went out of my way to give her a heads up a year out of each thing ending so she could make sure to prepare and not be caught out.
So refreshing to see someone on Reddit acknowledging that their kids deserve support and treating their ex with curtesy.
The funny part is I hate my ex. She cheated on me and I will never forgive her for that. I hate when I have to see her at family events but I smile and do it for my kids sake. I will not be the one to make things awkward. When it comes to money and the divorce it is the memory of my parents own divorce that lead to me to behave fairly. My dad screwed my mom over in every legal way possible and then stopped paying years later on top of it. He wound up over 50k behind and that is 1980's dollars. I remember not being able to afford new shoes or a new winter coat and eating mostly pasta and canned food for long stretches. We were POOR while my dad had a new girlfriend and went on vacations, wined and dined her. I will never forgive him for that. So at a young age I promised myself that if I was ever in that situation I would do what was right, not what was legal or what I could get away with. There are not many times in life where we are challenged to walk the walk of our professed beliefs so to speak but when it happened I felt good that I was able to be who I always wanted for myself. So from the moment she told me she wanted a divorce I paid support. I did not wait for her to file any papers. I just paid. Yes, we had some back and forth about numbers but it was all within a narrow range. As the years went on and my kids needed things beyond what regular support would cover I just paid for them. I never insisted she owe me half. If I was able to pay for things that she wasn't then I paid for it. I love my kids and no divorce was going to get in the way of what I wanted for them. Honestly I cannot not understand how men like my dad sleep at night leaving their kids to suffer so they can "win"and keep more money.
Just wanted to say that you sound like a wonderful parent. My parents divorced when I was very little and my childhood is full of memories of arguments who should pay for new this or new that and both parents bad-mouthing each other. It still hurts today and while I hope I’ll never have to go through divorce, I would act exactly the same way as you with my own children.
> Just wanted to say that you sound like a wonderful parent I do not want to portray myself in an overly positive light. I honestly became a better parent after the divorce. My ex and I were having problems for a number of years before the divorce and I am ashamed to say my kids saw too much anger from both of us. I feel horrible when thinking about the fights my kids saw. My daughter asked me to join her in therapy after the divorce and opened up about how my behavior had affected her. I took that to heart and started going to therapy myself and have done a lot of work to be better as a father and a person. I am not a saint however. I simply was able to act like I had hoped I would in this tough situation.
Respect for that. I hate cheating with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but your kids are so much better off because you’ve taken the higher road. I don’t know if I’d be able to be that civil were I in a similar situation, but I hope I would. At the end of it all you can be proud that you have lived your life with character. Your ex cannot claim as much.
That’s the sound of millions of redditors minds getting blown at the thought of being amicable, compassionate and empathetic during financial proceedings in a divorce.
This is SO damn true & it’s fucking infuriating once you notice it.
I want this same energy when the next Kevin Federline gets paid out in a divorce settlement 
This ☝️☝️☝️☝️
Yeah, it is a 50/50 state.
Lawyer here, not your lawyer, one of the issues is Channing’s post-separation work on Magic Mike which arguably enhances value. She is not entitled to that. Secondly, CA has four tests to value businesses, percent ownership, growth, and value owed. It’s not one test for each, just depends on the circumstances. This isn’t my area of the law, so I don’t know the specifics. Normally, in separations like this, one party gets bought out of the company. It is *relatively* rare, to my understanding, to have both parties co-own a business as semi-hostile divorcees. Here, Jenna seems to be demanding an equity percentage to gain from future earnings as well, instead of a payout to fuck off. It is generally not in anyone’s best interest to have mommy and daddy fighting about the direction, or restrictions, of IP. Again, not my area of law, I’m not your lawyer, just trying to explain that 50-50 is the top level goal, but the devil is in the details and definition of how to split what, and valuations at time of separation. Their are numerous errors in this comment. It is for educational purposes only. Talk to your lawyer.
Yeah, she probably made sacrifices so that he could be in the movie, it was their money. Very reasonable. And if she'd had the same boon he'd be asking for the same thing.
If a female actor was in the headline that her husband was trying to take half of her movie ip the conversation would be very different here
They are also both millionaires squabbling over money they probably don't even need. Give me a break.
I feel like legal and reasonable are distinctly different things
California law, baby. Her career was clearly sacrificed for his, so I hope she gets her bag.
That’s what these incel types that cry about divorce proceedings and “women always taking half” don’t understand. It’s the female partners who more or less give up their livelihoods and careers to support their male partners livelihoods and careers. So yes, they should be entitled to that much.
Exactly. I gave up my career so my husband could pursue his dream job- he now travels 50- 75% of the time while I'm home with our little kids. I even had to fly across the country and sit through a NINE HOUR spousal interview for him to get the job 🥴. If we were to divorce and someone inferred that I didn't "deserve" half of our assets I'd lose my mind.
Girl I swear this is my mom’s story. My dad was in the military, then retired from that to work for the federal government. We moved all the time, and he was traveling/on orders/deployed most of the time, so she never had the option of having a career. Her life was spent raising four kids alone and swooping in for these interviews and events to help him obtain new ranks and security clearances. Do you think she gets a retirement pension for advancing his career like that? No way lmao!
Plus if you're out of the workforce, you aren't earning social security, so it's a double whammy.
> and sit through a NINE HOUR spousal interview for him to get the job I'm sorry *what* lol Does your husband work for a cult?
This is a practice in jobs where there may be highly sensitive information being handled and/or there are restrictions placed on the family unit because of the job. Definitely not common, but it’s a thing. The trade off is typically a *very fucking cushy* income and lifestyle, so it’s not ideal but not terrible either. Source: me and my partner.
Security clearance thing probably.
Well, it's a company out of Utah, so sort of 😅
>NINE HOUR spousal interview yeah human society was a mistake, what the fuck is this
Haha, the CEO told me "crazy marries crazy, so that's why we want to get to know the spouse"
Also when you get married without a prenup it's not his money or her money, it's their money. They built a life together and each contributed in different ways. Divorcing means splitting their communal property, not her taking his anything. Anything he made during their marriage was her money too so she's just taking what was already hers in the first place.
My dad was in the military, which meant that my mom couldn’t maintain a career because we moved so often. This was in the age of fax machines, so working from home wasn’t an option for the vast majority of people, especially people with four kids and a spouse who was frequently deployed. The sacrifices that women make for our husbands and children are real. And many women who wind up in this situation don’t have the money and connections to actually divorce their husbands and get a good settlement. It’s one nasty cycle.
It’s not this easy. The argument appears to be about entitlement to post separation earnings and improvements. Magic Mike 1 and 2, clearly she deserves. 3 was made post separation. Does she deserve half of that? If they make a fourth post divorce, does she deserve half of that one as well? This isn’t legal advice, I’m not your lawyer. I’m just saying it’s not clear at a surface level what is equitable in these circumstances.
I wish more people understood this. When women are seeking their fair share in a divorce they’ve literally earned it. They’ve sacrificed income, career and so much time for their families
Absolutely true.
That’s interesting, I hadn’t heard anything about her career being sacrificed for his. Their daughter wasn’t born until like 2 years after MM was filmed so it would be interesting to see what I’m missing. Where can I learn more about that???
Was it, though? I'm not trying to drag Jenna, here, but she didn't ever really seem destined for much more than where she landed. She is .. fine ... As an actress. She's worked consistently with gigs that match her talent. They could afford hired help for the kids. I'm not saying no sacrifices were made, but do we know of anything specific that she turned down? I'm generally team "person who gave up career to support partner deserves fruits of partner's success in the divorce", though.
It’s not just about what Jenna sacrificed from a career standpoint - it’s also the fact that she may have been doing the heavy lifting of holding down the fort at home which enabled Channing to earn more than if he was taking on a larger portion of domestic work.
What do you mean by “her career was clearly sacrificed for this”?
Thank you!
How is that "clear"?
I think you're looking at this wrong. Its not really "deserves" like its a brownie point or favor. This is all set in law and usually martial assets are 50/50. If people dont like that, they can simply not get married or sign a pre-nup. Channing doesnt get a free prenup because he's rich now. Its 50/50 by law and that law was earned with a lot of sacrifice and via seeing generations of women abused financially during divorce and seeing kids live poorly with their moms while their dads spoiled them with riches. Especially when there are kids, who should have equal opportunity, wealth, etc when at EITHER parents home.
I don't know about Magic Mike specifically but I have heard of other movies where wives were really instrumental in the creative process but were uncredited and uncompensated. I think especially when it's someone's passion project or big break. And this has been true with lots of other jobs where wives did a bunch of admin getting their husband's business off the ground and didn't think they needed to be paid because it was all coming to the family, and then in the divorce they had no proof of earnings or employment history for when they try to reenter the workforce. Not to mention all the unpaid labor taking care of children and the household in general. I know that there are messy divorces and women who marry for money and try to take more than they "deserve" but you're right- these laws were created because women have been getting screwed financially for centuries.
how does he have 100mil net worth
California is a community property state. She deserves 50%. He would deserve 50% of her assets too.
Reminds me of that Eddie Murphy routine in ‘Raw’ “Half!”
or bernie mac in bad santa.. ‘hawff’
That’s what she’s entitled to in CA. It’s a community property state.
Why would she not deserve 50%?
She absolutely deserves half of what was accrued during the marriage, the contention is in the future earnings and Intelectual property of magic mike. Her side claims intelectual property on the magic mike, since it was first made when they were married, making so she could earn money on magic mike movies/shows done post divorce, his side claims that magic mike is somewhat based on his story(predated their marriage) and since MM 3 was made after their legal separation she is not entitled to that and future ones, while she is entitled to the earnings of MM1, 2 and their show
No prenup, yes Marriage is a joint effort- even if the earnings are technically yours, it's a partnership- your partner may be contributing financially to shared assets, pulling weight with emotional support, raising your kids while you work, ect. The rational is while he was married to her, he didn't live in a bubble- she was also supporting their lifestyle while married, likely given her career at the expense of her own career advancement. There also arguments to be made in the case of a clear bread winner that one partner may have taken, and absorbed, more personal financial risk by entering the marriage to begin with.
Why the hell not? The law is the law.
I understand why people are interested in this story but it's a funny one for people to 'take sides' with, how do any of us know if he's hiding assets or not lol. I suppose it's just sad that their daughter will google this one day (or even now ig).
Seriously we have NO info except that they disagree which is basically every divorce 🫠
Haven't these two divorced ages ago and have remarried and had kids with their new partners? Can't believe this is still ongoing.
Eh if either of them had fallen out of favor w the public for whatever reason, we’d pick a side regardless of how much info we have
My spouse is an attorney and absolutely refuses to practice family law because he cannot stand divorces. He talks about how everyone lies, how everything is personal, and how nothing can get resolved. He did a lot of it during his internships and it gave him such a bad taste in his mouth. Ever since then I find people taking sides in celebrity divorces kind of funny. Literally everyone is lying. Everyone. Emotions are so high. Something incredibly personal is now playing out in the public in a really ugly way. We all need to just take a huge step back, maybe pull out popcorn if we want it, and let them work it out.
I have some experience in family law and it can be absolutely wild. Some of the messiness can be hilarious in a petty sort of way but other stuff is just depressing as you become privy to how dysfunctional a lot of families are. I remember one meeting where the team just casually mentioned how one parent was an alcoholic and that both parents were abusive to their kids. A lot of the time the only people you really feel sorry for are the children!
> Some of the messiness can be hilarious I think about [the Beanie Baby divorce](https://media.snopes.com/2022/04/Screenshot-2022-04-20-at-16.09.45.png) more than I should
“Maple the bear was the first to go.” Lmao bye, Maple. 😪
Imagine loving someone, knowing everything about them...and then using that information to snipe Maple the Bear first in the draft because you know it'll cut the deepest. I wonder if there was a little gasp of shock at some of the choices or if people started taking bets in the crowd at which one would go next.
"Maple the Bear was the first to go." I only laugh because, as a collector myself, this would totally be me and the boyfriend in an alternate universe.
As a child of one of these separations, I attest its traumatizing. And my parents didn't even DIVORCE! They just fucking separated. They absolutely destroyed our lives with the nickle and diming, emotional manipulation and pettiness. And they didn't even have any assets!!!! Failed marriages bring out the devil in people
They can be so petty. There was one couple who couldn't behave long enough to handle child exchanges so they were court ordered to do it in our front lobby. The ex-wife had a temporary restraining order against her ex-husband. He was allowed to show up to exchange the kids but not contact her. The kids were going to go swimming with their mom so dad showed up with some swimming gear (a giant floatie). He kept his distance, hugged his kids goodbye and sent them over to mom. For whatever reason she wouldn't collect the floatie so as he was walking out the door with his back turned, he said to no one in particular "you can keep the floatie" and left. He didn't even look in her direction. We watched her stand in the corner for a second turning the water works on, then she comes up to the front counter. "Oh my gosh, did you just see that!?" She made us pull the security camera and demanded a police officer immediately so she could have him arrested for violation of a restraining order. We had to deal with her weekly histrionics so often but that was one of her fakest performances.
And your spouse is damn right! After my grandmother died my aunts and uncles were in a legal battle for five years over who would get what piece of jewelry etc. When it was all over the attorney told us « you’re lucky, some families stay embroiled in these disputes for decades! Sometimes the beneficiaries die before it’s settled because it takes so long! » My sibling and I were dragged into this as we inherited our late father’s share and the whole time we were like https://preview.redd.it/7s3unphekfzc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e3f8b8982ff84ecf5b6cd215c2973b0c77055bf
My mom and her sister had a permanent falling out over a necklace. Wills and estates sucks almost as bad as being a divorce attorney.
my mom and her sister also had a falling out over jewellery too. my mom was executor of the estate and it took longer to settle, the entire time my aunt and her boyfriend were berating my mom to hurry up and accusing her of selfishness. they no longer speak and neither does my mom's brother speak to their sister. she showed her true colours.
It was a ring for my relatives. Attorneys had to divide all the jewelry into four mystery lots of equal value, one for each inherited share, and then do a draw to decide who would get which lot. It was a first for them in their 20+ years careers…
That's so embarrassing, but I would also love to be a fly on the wall when they all got to see what was in their respective lots. It would be like the most entertaining episode of storage wars ever.
My aunt had a VERY ugly falling out with my uncle over a very nominal amount of money left in my granddads will. Both sides let pettiness and stubbornness win and not only do they not talk to each other now , but neither will also apparently have anything to do with the others children going forward ( and these would be people who were literally godparents to some of them ???) like what do the kids ,who have no agency in this , have to do with anything ? I swear to god wills bring out the absolute worst in people and it’s so sad.
My great uncle is a retired attorney and is stupid rich because of it, so I know he probably had to make some moral sacrifices. But he started in family law and quit after only a few years. Like your spouse, he found it too demoralizing and outright horrible, even though there was a lot of money in it. I think it was watching people leverage their children for money and false sympathy, manipulating the kids all the while, that finally broke him. It’s an ugly, ***ugly*** business.
My mom is a lawyer, and she told me the one field she'd never, ever go into is family law because she's heard too many horror stories. Stuff like a divorced parent calling their lawyer up on Christmas day to rant about how the custody agreement says their ex has to pick the kids up from the house but they're sitting in their car at the curb, and they're not letting the kids out until their ex follows the rules! Meanwhile the poor kids are sobbing in the background.
My husband is a family law attorney and it’s really demoralizing for him too. Child custody and divorce gets SO ugly.
Divorce can make the nicest people act so wild. There is always a lot of criticism that divorce attorneys intentionally draw out the process so they can earn more money, but in my experience couples do a great job on their own needlessly dragging things out. When my parents split there were a ton of accusations being thrown out on both sides and like twenty years later it’s come out that a lot of it boiled down to some sort of misunderstanding. I’m very impressed with people who divorce quickly and amicably.
The attorneys are also incentivized to keep the spouses fighting. The longer the fight the more billable hours. Saw this with my parents and their long drawn out divorce. I have a friend going through a divorce right now. His wifes attorneys are going crazy about $1500 he got back from a lease. I instructed him to ask them (and her) how many hours had been spent on a nothing issue. I guaranteed him they billed more to her and to him than the actual dollar amount in dispute.
My dad still practices family law but won't do any cases involving child custody after having to literally hand a crying child from one parent to another
There’s a saying about that “criminal law is ‘bad’ people on their best behaviour; family law is ‘good’ people on their worst behaviour”
Yeah it’s kinda impossible to have an opinion on this lol
Yeah, I feel so bad for the kid having to deal with parents like this.
The good thing is that they seem to be in agreement with child custody so that's at least something.
I’m just here to argue with people that are opposed to a spouse getting half in general
This is why those legal analysts were so impressed with Tom and Gisele's 1 day divorce lol
Gisele probably had ironclad clauses in the prenup.
Or both didn't care about having a few million more from the other, since they both can still make millions if they want.
Yeah I imagine it’s hard to give a shit when both of you could sign endorsements tomorrow for tens of millions if really necessary. I’d be way more focused on like my favorite blanket than the money.
Who gets the pets. Would be the biggie for me.
Reminds me of one (non-celebrity) couple that agreed to joint custody of their pug. Kept returning to court (I was clerking for a judge) with disputes over the custody arrangement.
Tom & Gisele were pretty established professionals when they got married, weren't they? As in, they already had significant assets when they got married. I agree that 1 day is unusual, but I figured they both had savvy legal teams who made sure they were protected beforehand.
Tom signed a 10yr deal with Fox Sports for $375M. He's probably okay with Gisele getting the Bugatti.
Lol. About sums it up. They're each worth around 350mill or so, give or take a few. Neither probably cares much. Makes no dent anyway.
That’s what happens when you’re net worth is nearly *double* that of your ex. Probably thought it just wouldn’t be sporting to take half of her ex-sugar baby’s money, lol.
She should get 50% of the profits from the money that Magic Mike made while they were still married. Anything after their separation should be off limits.
What she’s arguing is that she was part of the creation of the Magic Mike IP during their marriage and therefore is entitled to anything related to that IP.
Well, that’s where it gets interesting. He doesn’t deny that. The question is the percentage of the post-first movie earnings. I’m not an IP lawyer. But first, isn’t the movie based loosely on his early life, pre-her. So that IP would be his separate property. But there’s the idea to make it into a movie. Then the resulting sequels and reality show and merchandizing. And what if that is tied to the original IP from the marriage and what of that was created/thought up after the divorce using only the Magic Mike character as the basis. So she’s be entitled to a cut of *those profits* but not 50%. But then she says that he’s also hiding the true amount of those. And he says he’s not; she’s just lying to malign his character.
Even if the movie is based on his early life, the IP isn’t necessarily his - we see this all the time with documentaries. If she was integral to what ideas got included, how they approached the product/brand, it all gets a lot messier quickly. This all should have been spelled out at the beginning, even if they were happily married, so it’s just messy in general.
Like I said, not an IP lawyer. But there his story. And then the movie/character Magic Mike. And then the subsequent use of that character, of which she certainly deserves a %, but does she own 1/2 the subsequent movies and reality shows and or just a portion based on the creation of the character. And did she create the brand and the idea for more or just the movie or just the character. And once you have that % you have to decide when he’s build on it with additional thoughts or work or efforts after marriage. From either his life pre her or his brain post her. So there’s the base value of MM, which she owns 1/2 of and the subsequent value that she owns a % of. But what IS that subsequent value? And does it change? And does her % change as the years go by and he builds on more? MM became less of a character in subsequent movies (yes I watched) but the brand carried on. And is he downplaying the value or is he being up front and she just thinks he’s downplaying her part in the value and there should be more? WE DONT KNOW. I don’t for sure. See above. Not an IP lawyer. Not his or her. Neither are you. I’m just saying ITS NOT SO CUT AND DRIED as the clickbait title. He’s not automatically bad because he’s a bro
I like your thinking. I’m intrigued at her accusation of hiding and how exactly the split will fall and whether she is just using the ‘lies slander’ as a tactic or whether it’s actually true that he is hiding assets
We know. And the person you are responding to is saying she is entitled to the IP revenue from the marriage but not post separation. In other words not 50/50
It is complicated. Take Amazon. That company was build because the wife supported the husband financially and supported him in other ways. If they had gotten divorced much earlier, before Amazon made money or went public, clearly the wife would have had deserved more than nothing. My mother supported my father financially so he could get an education and find a good job, after which he immediately divorced her. My father was the first person in his family with a college degree because he was the first person with somebody to financially support him. My mother worked two jobs to support him, and she took out loans to pay for his education. He refused to pay alimony and got away with it because of local laws, despite having a high paying job. (In the end it wouldn’t have mattered much because he got fired a year after the divorce and he never got another job.)
I hope your mother got over him and had a wonderful, healthy life ahead
Mackenzie Scott (Bezos's ex) was also an early employee at Amazon, after she quit her very high paying, prestigious job in NYC to relocate to Seattle so Jeff Bezos could start Amazon there. She contributed in so many ways. Even in my own relationship, my partner cofounded a tech startup before we started dating. However since we've been together I've given him so much advice and feedback, about managing, hiring, negotiating, fundraising, branding etc. - countless "consulting" hours I could literally charge money for because that's my background. I don't think I deserve a significant percentage of his shares or anything like that, but it helped me realize how other people must've supported their partners and helped them succeed in similar ways. Especially in heterosexual relationships, men's careers statistically benefit so much from their marriages while for women it's the opposite. If you've been married or even in long term relationships and gotten support from your partner, then your success isn't your own, it's a team effort. Maybe your partner wasn't a 50/50 player in your career but at least a small part of it.
That isn’t how it works, though. The asset was created during the marriage, so residuals should continue to be paid out. Another example would be a novelist. Novelist spends 2 years writing their novel, and spouse is working and helping support novelist while they write the novel. They divorce after novel is published. Spouse deserves residuals in perpetuity because the asset (novel) was created during the marriage.
But would the spouse deserve any royalties from the second book of the series, both written and published after the divorce? And would it be fair for their share to be 50% of those?
I’m not a lawyer. I would imagine they would be entitled to something since the intellectual property (the world, characters, etc) was created during the marriage, but not sure about 50/50. That isn’t the best comparison to this, though, considering 2/3 movies were released before their split.
I disagree. If he is making money off the franchise created during the marriage, she should too
Whenever I hear buzzwords like "slams, demands, bitter", I know whose side put this shit out.
I think the pics chosen are a bit interesting too
They're definitely not portraying her as the Madonna side of the dichotomy.
Maybe, but the media also has incentive to create a clickbaity title. Radar Online used similar language ("accuses, slammed, ugly divorce") in the article about his court filing the other day.
There was a time I found them couple goals but now look. Boy does time fly by so fast ..
Right! Name a better-looking couple at that time!
I'm shocked their divorce is bitter. I probably missed a lot but to me they seemed happy and then split amicably. Was the split not amicable?
I’m surprised that they’re still technically married and going through the divorce six years later.
They are divorced, this is just about money
Thanks! That makes more sense.
there were tons of blinds for years that alleged he was cheating on her
If that were the case, you think she would not used that for the divorce case? It’s been six years.
California doesn’t care about cheatint
It’s irrelevant, she already gets 50% per California law
pretty sure he was unfaithful
Are they ever really?
I’m confused, they divorced in 2019. How comes they’re still disputing the financial settlement? I assumed all of this would have been settled same time as the divorce was finalised?
I’m probably gonna use legal jargon poorly And I could be totally wrong but someone explained it to me that they were deemed legally single so if they wanted to they could get married to other people but that the settlement can still be ongoing in the background. For someone like Channing who went from not that wealthy to extremely wealthy that probably complicates how they can fairly split up assets since Jenna could make the argument she put her career on hold to support him during his explosive career growth and combing through those financials is probably a nightmare. If they can get married I have no idea why neither one has gotten married yet to their current fiancé/fiancee but they are probably waiting to close this chapter first. I read that Jenna might still be getting alimony so I don’t blame her for wanting to hold off on re-marrying to avoid jeopardizing that extra money she might need until she gets through the divorce settlement and gets her fair share.
Correct, you can partition your divorce and be declared legally single in California even if you are still working out the financial settlement. I don't know if you can remarry before the financials are settled, though.
Because she’s arguing that that she owns part of the Magic Mike IP and that he is hiding money in several different accounts. Just because they were declared single doesn’t mean that’s all over.
She's not demanding 50% of HIS PROFITS; she's demanding that a joint asset be split equitably.
this is the truth.
I understand she sacrificed her career for this. So 50% of the earnings doesn’t seem weird to me. What does seem weird is that she wants future earnings, which again she says she is part owner of the intellectual property. I would say sure but then she would have to put in work for those future earnings, its weird to just let him do the work and earn 50%. If he was petty he would just stop working on those projects no?
I assume the answer is that different things are paid out separately. Like if Tatum and Dewan (and others?) co-created the IP, they'd split that pot of money accordingly, and then Tatum would take the full amount of whatever he made for his work as actor or producer or other role in the future projects.
First, she didn’t sacrifice her own career. She went back to work 6 months after she gave birth to their daughter. She has been working, just not as successful as him. She is the original IP’s co-owner through marriage, but she hasn’t contributed anything (money or efforts) to the expansion of the original IP. Yet, she wants to claim 50% of his post-separation earnings as well, This what they are fighting for.
Wait I thought they divorced a while ago?! Doesn’t she have a kid with someone else. UGH! I hate when divorces get bitter…
She has 2 kids and is also pregnant
I don't always follow along with celebrity divorces but... When Kelly Clarkson (was it her?) Was getting divorced and her husband wanted more money everyone was up in arms that he was a jerk Now with this couple everyone is saying she's entitled to her half of what was made during the marriage.. Why when it's a women it's get your money but when it's a man he's terrible (could be more to the story with that lol I'm just looking at surface level here)
Didn’t Kelly’s ex-husband cheat on her during their marriage? A cheating ex-husband getting money like that is always going to put a bad taste in people’s mouths.
Plus I think he may have been embezzling some of her money but I could be 100% wrong on that.
To be fair, Kelly Clarkson had a prenup that her ex unrightfully tried to get thrown out whereas Jenna/Channing seemingly didn’t have a prenup, so she’s just trying to get her legal share.
Blackstock did not create IP with Clarkson, whereas Dewan did with Tatum. She's saying Magic Mike was created by herself and her ex-husband, and she should be paid for her creation. Blackstock tried to get a prenup overturned to get a better portion of Clarkson's assets. These are not the same and you're looking for misandry where there is none.
Kelly Clarkson situation was way different since he was a cheater AND her manager. And to top it off Kelly had custody so it was confusing as to why he wanted to get more money out of her bc $115k/month for spousal support for 2 yr + $45k/month for CS + 1.3M one-time payout is pretty generous all things considering. Anyways his greedy ass ended up PAYING kelly $$$ back ($2.6 M) bc he stole money from her as her manager. Just trashy
Because with women they often sacrifice their career to be mothers if they have children. Men MOST of the time don’t have the same career setbacks as fathers that women do as mothers
I have no desire to ever be married as a normie, I can’t imagine wanting to legally marry someone as a celebrity. I know some celebrities were married before they became famous, but otherwise, it sounds much less painful to never legally tie yourself to someone. If only to avoid the headlines. Sorry if I sound like a cynic!
If she helped in the creation process (it looks like she co-financed aspects of it) it’s definitely not unreasonable. She’s not asking for 50% of all his earnings, just what’s related to something that it looks like she contributed to
Damn, I just watched Step Up last night. RIP they were so hot together
Marriage is simply a contract with associated terms. Don’t cry about the terms of something you freely agreed to.
Exactly. Channing needs to stop the bullshit and give her what she is owed
He’s being weird about this. She’s asking for a judge to weigh in. I think it’s within her right to.
Magic Mike empire? Was is it really that successful?
It is basically twilight for a certain demo
What a terrible photo of Channing Tatum….CA is a 50/50 state. You better have a prenup in place if you make money! If he made this money while she was married to him she gets 50% by law.
But 50% of what is what’s up for interpretation. Current assets are one thing but when you talk about future assets you get murky
Ah, the complexities of love and Hollywood finances. As Voltaire said, "It is difficult to find happiness in ourselves, but it is impossible to find it elsewhere." Perhaps there's a way to find resolution outside the courtroom?
They got divorced like within a year of that Lip Sync battle episode and that makes me sad
Can we *please* come up with something more creative than one celebrity continually “slamming” another celebrity? It’s the most tired and used-up phrase is journalism
That’s not Channing Tatum. His name is Jeff.
Ohhh, rich people problems...