Mel Gibson’s divorce from Robyn Moore, after 28 years of marriage, has the media aflutter reporting that this could be one of the priciest splits in history for a Hollywood couple.
In the divorce papers, Moore cited irreconcilable differences and is seeking joint physical and legal custody over their minor child, Thomas (one of seven children), as well as spousal support and attorney's fees.
People.com estimates Gibson is worth about $1 billion, saying he made $600 million from "The Passion of the Christ," $100 million or more in real-estate investments (he bought an island in Fiji for $15 million in 2004 and has a 26-million, 400-acre ranch in Costa Rica) and $75 million from film and TV projects he executive-produced.
If Gibson has to pony up a lot of cash, he'd be following in the footsteps of other celebrities who faced big payouts to their spouses: Michael Jordan owed $168 million to his former wife Juanita after their divorce in 2006; Steven Spielberg paid $100 million to Amy Irving after their 1989 divorce, and after their 1994 split Neil Diamond had to pay his ex Marcia Murphey over $150 million.
To get the real scoop on the Gibson divorce, TheWrap talked to Stacy Phillips, a founding and managing partner at Los Angeles family law firm Phillips, Lerner, Lauzon & Jamra, whose clients include Bobby Brown, Corina Villaraigosa and the conservators in Britney Spears' family law matters.
Everyone's saying this could be one of the priciest divorces ever. Do you agree?
We need to put this in perspective. The wealthier clients typically are the business clients. What people think you're worth and what you're worth are two very different things.
So you don't think he's worth $1 billion?
Even if he did make $600 million from "Passion of the Christ," he had to slice and dice that up between all of his agents and managers. And he has to pay taxes on it. It's still a lot of money, but it's not $600 million.
Whatever he’s worth, his wife is entitled to half of that sum?
Under California law, if there's no pre-nup or agreement, she gets half of whatever he earns during the marriage from services rendered -- plain and simple. That's the public policy. Plus, she raised all of those kids, and there's something to be said for that.
British actor John Cleese halved his payout to his wife last month after convincing a judge that he didn't earn the kind of money he used to and was therefore not required to support his ex-wife in the style she'd become used to. Could Mel try that argument?
I think that would be irrelevant here. On a permanent basis, support is based on need and how long they've been married.
