Lesson of Christie Brinkley's Divorce Case: He or She Who Has More Money Will Have Prenuptial Challenged
It really isn't a surprise that architect Peter Cook was seen having a manicure this week. His claws were being sharpened for his divorce trial with model Christie Brinkley.
Mr. Cook, he who was the architect of his marriage's demise by having an affair with an 18 year old, apparently didn't fully realize how much he would lose as a result of his wandering weenie. Life with Brinkley included beautiful homes, a glamorous social life, boats, first-class plane rides and the access his wife's success provided.
And then poof, it was all gone when she threw him out. And naturally, he missed it.
Having been married three times before marrying Peter Cook, Christie Brinkley obviously insisted on a pre-nup. Like many well-heeled people, she thought her lawyers had written a solid agreement.
With her previous husband, musician Billy Joel, the divorce was dissolved amicably and both maintained their own incomes and self-respect. Then came developer Rick Taubman, whom she reportedly paid $1 million for freedom and sole custody of their son, Jack Paris, now 13. Having been financially burned by her relationship with Taubman, Brinkley understandably was insistent that the pre-nup with Cook would be ironclad.
"Unfortunately the word ironclad is a bit of a myth," says divorce lawyer Clifford M. Solomon, partner of Solomon Tanenbaum in Westchester. "Anyone can challenge a pre-nup. And it has worked in some cases. Someone will challenge that the person didn't reveal income or assets in the pre-nup and then the agreement is revisited to their advantage."
Often the wealthier of the two sparring spouses will throw in some extra money or property beyond the pre-nup to just make the case go away. After all, a court trial is as ugly as Christie Brinkley is beautiful.
A generation of divorce has taught many that court trials are brutal battlefields where the verbal bruising causes permanent scars on the children and parents, who still must maintain a relationship post-divorce in parenting the children. This is why 22 states now encourage parents to try mediation before the divorce goes to trial. And why less than 10 percent of all divorces are now decided in a court trial.
As collaborative law expert Allison Bell points out, keeping your disputes out of court allows both parents to retain control over their own lives and steer the course for their family's future. "In court, you are handing over the responsibility for your family decision-making to a judge who doesn't know your family psychology or family systems," she says. "As a custody evaluator, I see only a small slice of the divorcing public going this route and they are those who are so embroiled in their fight that they can't keep their kids at the forefront and take a step back."
Yet Peter Cook had nothing to lose. His stature had already been diminished. By going after Brinkley, he seems to have thought she would cave and come up with more bounty for him.
As one of Brinkley's friends told me, "He's shameless. Christie always paid most of the bills and now, after cheating on her, he thinks she should continue paying for his lifestyle forever."
Would it matter if the trial revealed that he watched porn on the Internet or had other affairs? What's the difference between one or several affairs when your reputation has been permanently tarnished? What would seem to matter to him is that his lifestyle has been reduced considerably since their separation.
In this battle, Cook, an architect in Bridgehampton, N.Y. is challenging his prenuptial agreement, which appears to set aside three boats and several parcels of East End real estate for her that he now wants as well. Brinkley's $30 million home in Bridgehampton is not in dispute. Cook fathered a daughter, Sailor Lee, 10, with the model and adopted Jack Paris, Taubman's biological son.
As lawyers privately admit, a prenuptial agreement has several limitations.
● If a party can prove that the other spouse didn't fully disclose all his (or her!) assets, it can mean trouble. Otherwise the other party has signed off without full knowledge of the assets at issue.
● If child custody and visitation rights have been included in the pre-nup. This becomes a wild card in many challenged divorces. Such an agreement can not be made without considering the best interests of the child. Shouldn't the less wealthy spouse be able to provide an equal lifestyle for the child to that of the wealthier one? It seems a ridiculous question, since kids benefit more from love than from a custom-made love seat, but the issue becomes fodder for many legal fistfights.
● If a judge rules that the pre-nup was made under duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud.
● If the groom or bride didn't have enough time to digest the stipulations in the prenuptial agreement and had to sign off quickly just before the wedding.
An agreement runs the risk of being found "unconscionable" if it stipulates in advance that a lesser-earning spouse waives spousal support or alimony. As Bell also points out, courts realize that "circumstances change since the pre-nup was created and people do things during the course of a marriage that may nullify something in the pre-nup. Even the language in which the pre-nup is written may be contested later on."
So if Brinkley bought a house with her own money while with Cook, he may think he can get a piece of it.
The sad spectacle of the Christie Brinkley trial is that both she and Cook once loved each other, and it has ended in such bitterness. As the editorial director of firstwivesworld.com, a site that helps divorcing women heal through self-love and smarts, we often counsel women to "love your kids more than you hate your spouse."
Some would argue that Brinkley should have spared the children, Sailor and Jack, this media circus by giving up some more cash and property. Her lifestyle would not be that affected. But it is the principle that rankles and clearly Cook was being so unreasonable that she was willing to go this route, even though it will lead to more pain, exposure and damage to those involved.
But one of her key allies in this on-going battle is Alexa Ray, her daughter with Billy Joel, who was quoted saying she supported her mother for standing up for what is right. It may be right, but at a very high emotional cost.
Follow Jill Brooke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/divorcemama
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree completely with this writer's comments except for the sexist "following his weenie" remark. The goose/gander rule applies here. What if it had been the woman in the relationship who had strayed? Would we say she followed her boobs out the door?
Come to think of it, to hell with it. I'm PC'd out. Say what you want about the guy.
Wrong is wrong.
It was wrong for Heather Mills to soak Paul McCarthy as it is for Peter Cook to soak Christine Brinkley.
It is better for Cook to take was is easily there-by agreement than to lie about getting more through this trial.
In terms of money, I don't think Ms. Brinkley will get much sympathy from the men who choose to follow this case. For decades now, ex-husbands have been forced to pay thousands and yes even millions of dollars in order to keep their otherwise ex-wives in the lifestyle they've grown accustomed to. The usual comment from women is 'serves him right for marrying a gold digger'. I doubt we'll hear that same attitude from the sisterhood when the situation is reversed.
For me, there is something inherently wrong about one adult being financially responsible to another after a divorce (I said adult there, children are another thing entirely). But in terms of adults, if one person chooses to allow their spouse to be the major breadwinner, they should have absolutely no right to those resources when the partnership breaks up. If that puts an ex-husband or wife on skid row, well, too bad, you made terrible choices and now you have to live with them. In our modern society, men and women both, have the option of being financially independent. If one or the other freely chooses NOT to exercise that option they have no one to blame but themselves. I think most men accept this but it's taking a little longer for women to embrace it. To quote a movie...
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Continued…
I think many women would love to tell Peter Cook to go to hell, and I'm sure those same women didn't give it a second thought when Heather Mills received 48 million dollars after only four years of marriage to Paul McCartney.
Perhaps one day the courts and lawyers will be able to back us out of the legal divorce mess they created. In the meantime, Christie may have to resign herself to the fact that she'll be paying her ex a healthy sum of money for a very long time. That must sting, especially when you consider that the $300,000 of hush money he paid his lover probably came out of her bank account.
Anyone who watched "John Adams" on HBO will understand what it means that we should be a nation of laws. The law is the law, and a pre-nup is a legal, lawful document.
It's sad to see someone as attractive and successful as Christie Brinkl
I don't think that anyone would argue that Christie Brinkley has the right to defend her pre-nuptial agreement. Where I think people would disagree is the notion that it has to be public. This is a family law case and it is not unheard of for the judge to close the courtroom. She objected to this. Regardless of what her legal strategy is, to expose the father of her children and consequently her children to this sleazy circus is wrong and it doesn't show her in a positive light.
She is an ICON!
Talking about being jilted and scorned only makes her look petty.
This is her 4th marriage, I would try keeping it out of the news.
Or is the problem- she realizes, she's no longer considered the cat's meow.
I think what is important to gleen from this article is the knowledge that Brinkley is not doing this for retribution or "ha-ha" moments. She actually has a legal right, if not obligation, to protect her assets which clearly should be passed on to her children, not this leech.
So wait, I can sue the lender who allowed me to get my car, since the situation has changed and now it's not fair for me to obey the contract that I signed?
That's all that this is. He signed a contract with her, since he didn't think that it would matter. Now that it DOES matter, he's trying to break the contract, and the court may well help him to do it!
Using your arguement. I prenupt contention is really buying a car and finding out later the car radio does not work and the tires go flat every 3K miles. If you do not listen to the radio or drive long distances everything is fine but your job changes an now you need to drive long distances. Should you then be eligible to get better tires and a radio that works? Well you signed a contract and it states nothing about a radio or having functional tires, so do you get compensated or a new radio or tires.
In this case having kids or buying expensive joint property changes things.
True, it does change things, and I don't think that Child Support should be allowed to be in a pre-nup. However, it is still a contract between two people, and he's now trying to get out of it and get not only spousal support, but property that was bought using HER money. I don't want MY wife getting my car if we were to divorce, nor do I want her being able to claim part of my retirement funds, etc......
LIke many before me and more after, It's time to throw out the attorneys with the bath water.
They are the scum of the earth with their promises that never hold true except for them.
It is a damn shame that adultery has become so common and acceptable in our culture that the old fashioned concept of punishment has been discarded by the Courts. I suspect that male judges excuse conduct which they may themselves be guilty of.
No, I agree with adultery not being a crime anymore. That one portion of a relationship is not the business of the state, not even in the contracted and sanctioned relationship of marriage. Realize that if it was illegal, and two people decided to have an open marriage, one of them could have the other thrown in jail for obeying the spirit of the contract that they made.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
