Divorce settlement: Brad Garrett's wife gets half of his "Everybody Loves Raymond" profits & more

:P

Damn, those are some expensive kids! :crazy:

I tend to think that child support should be based on income, so I don't see a problem with that number (assuming he really does make a boat load of money, and all the support is used for the kids).

And as far as the child support goes, frankly, I think a chunk of it should be put into a trust for the kids so that mommy can't spend it all.

Sorry, I know that sounds snarky, but really, who the fuck needs $20,000 a month for child support?

Do the kids have sheets spun of gold?

If you don't need it now, save it up for college, retirement, or whatever. Anyway, gold sheets are uncomfortable...

"I'mma get some extra cheese on my Whopper." :rofl:

(I stole that line)

doesn't sound entirely unreasonable to me. For all we know she worked her ass off supporting him before he made it big. Why shouldn't she get half the income generated during their marriage? I'm constantly shocked by the default misogynistic point of view people display toward child support and spousal support. I don't get child support from my ex because when we divorced our incomes were pretty equitable but if he all of sudden became a millionaire you'd bet your ass I'd be in court demanding child support. Kids shouldn't live in rent control with their mom while their dad lives in wealth. Seems like common decency to me.

It's just that $20K a month seems excessive to me, but I am looking at it from the point of view of my own income level.

I honestly don't see what you would need $20K a month for.

As I said in another post on this thread, I think some should be spent on the kids now, and the rest put in a trust for them. Just my opinion.

But some people have it anyway. Kids don't deserve to have their standard of living go down just because their parents divorced. That applies to all kids, even the rich ones. If the state bases it on a percentage of income, then that is what they get. I don't see what's wrong with it. They didn't need the perks of being rich kids before their parents got divorced either.

There is also no reason to believe that the parent with the earnings finds this level of support to be too high or burdensome. Perhaps he's glad to make sure that his children don't suffer materially because their parents are no longer together.

It's only a public matter of concern when they aren't receiving adequate support.

Just because the law allows it or mandates it doesn't make it right.

You can tell a lot about a person's character and the way they were raised by how entitled they feel to another person's earnings.

Is it possible that a portion of the $20K a month is earmarked to go into trust/college funds as part of the settlement? That would seem to be a sensible and sane way to ensure that the money is actually spent on the kids.

There's quite a gap between the kids "living in rent control" and 50% + 50% of residuals + $20k a month in child support + $35k a month in spousal support. I guess that 50% just ain't enough to pay the mortgage and cover the kids needs. :eyes:

"Common decency" as you put it calls for you to quit suckling on that teat once you divorce.

Misogynistic??? Sounds more like gold digging ... and digging and digging and digging

:spank:


:rofl:

:evilgrin:

Note: he's not divorcing them.

You just never know.

My daughter and I worked out with both of them and Brad used to kid my
daughter cuz she was so intense on the treadmill.

They seemed like the happiest couple and then all of a sudden we heard they were splitting up.
You never would have thunk it by the way they acted towards each other. :shrug:

Of course, this can be altered if the children have special needs - they are only guidelines. Don't know what the guidelines are in California. He's probably making more than $80,000 per month, but who knows?

I believe Marla Maples went to that school too....
It includes having the baby so you can use child support as a wedge.

Because all people who aren't rich are just money grubbing gold diggers who wish they were rich. Especially if they're women. And, of course, it's not as if people ever become rich after they're married, with the help of their spouse. That never happens. :sarcasm:

"And, of course, it's not as if people ever become rich after they're married, with the help of their spouse."

Sure they do. For example ... Brad Garrett's wife. :eyes:

liquidate all his assets, put all the cash in overseas accounts and then fake his own death. I've heard of alot of men doing the at least the first two, that's why they advise women not to mention divorce until the latest possible point in time so the guy doesn't have time to make all the money disappear. Those damn brats don't deserve that money, it's not like they worked for it. Let Daddy blow it on hookers and cocaine, that's the way things should be. :eyes:

It's almost as if some people think that men inherently deserve massive sums of wealth, innately, for being men, but women don't, because they are gold-digging whores or something

I don't know why she should be held in lower regard than him; she got this money after marrying an actor who hit it big (none of us know what her financial status was before, though) and he got his playing a whiny brother on a crappy, obnoxious tv series. She's ahead in my book.

That is 100% correct. But I'm sure you have a well thought out argument as to why children are entitled to wealth simply for being born.

What's next ... allowing children to sue their parents if they think they deserve a larger allowance? Do they get to garnish their parents wages if they get a Hyundai for their 16th birthday instead of the Mercedes they wanted? :eyes:


"It's almost as if some people think that men inherently deserve massive sums of wealth, innately, for being men, but women don't, because they are gold-digging whores or something"

Whoever earns it deserves it. Gender only factors into in the minds of male bashers.

She got her 50% ... that should be the end of it. The fact is that she wants to divorce him ... but stay married to his wealth. That is disgusting.

..."liquidate all his assets, put all the cash in overseas accounts and then fake his own death..."

Oh, I see. The Ken Lay approach!

Fame went to his head. When I met them on numerous occasions, she seemed to
be in love with the guy and he was a self absorbed smart ass.

Just my opinion, but Jill appears to be a nice person and NOT a gold digger.

I think Brad got carried away with his fame and it's too bad for their two
adorable little kids.

So why is this news to anyone who thinks it's too much money?

:shrug:

!

That a spouse should get X percentage simply because they were married. If you divorce, you become independent and should support yourself.

The ONLY exception to this should be for wealth generated during the marriage, or wealth generated as a result of support offered during the marriage. If these two were married seven years, then they first married in 1999. As I recall, Everybody Loves Raymond came on the air in the mid-90's. He had his wealth before they were married, and she should have no right to it once the marriage has been dissolved.

I have no complaints about the $20k a month in child support though. The children should be raised in an environment commensurate with his means. But her? Damn, that's just not right.

Prenup. Prenup. Prenup. Why the hell did he marry without one?

She's entitled to half of all wealth accumulated during the time they were married. Perhaps they married without a pre-nup because they already had their first child :think: In any case, he was making over $6 million a year during the last years of Everyone Loves Raymond, reportedly $250K per episode for 24 eps per year, plus a percentage of syndication proceeds. The child support and spousal support are only until the youngest child is 18 (2018). While his ex is certainly not hurting for money, it really doesn't sound like she's taking him to the cleaners, in fact since they've been married less than 10 years, they may have a pre-nup and the settlement is according to its terms.

I found this on IMDB:

"Garrett's Secret Divorce

16 August 2006 (WENN)

Former Everybody Loves Raymond star Brad Garrett secretly divorced his wife Jill Diven last year. The actor, 46, and Diven quietly divorced, keeping their marital problems secret from Garrett's TV co-stars and his own parents. The couple met in 1998 when Diven was working as a cocktail waitress in Las Vegas, Nevada and married in May 1999 at the Beverly Hills Hotel in California. Garrett tells USA Today newspaper his ex-wife is "an extraordinary woman" and "the greatest mom in the world" to their children Max, seven, and Hope, six. He adds, "Our number one focus is our kids and parenting. We will always be friends because we will never be single parents. We will always be two parents." Diven reiterates their split was amicable, insisting, "We both realized we're best friends, and we're always going to be best friends. People grow apart. We could do the 'he said-she said' thing, but that's not us."

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0004951/news